date:20060404

Hello I.S. ,
Thanks for the site I have booked marked it, I  very much enjoyed the 
rebuttal of the Kiosk (meteor) effect paper mentioned earlier.  It gives 
one a very "even" perspective and I don't think that anyone wastes time 
in being a good steward of the Earth.

jim

I. S. wrote:

>For those interested in climate change (one of the
>best reasons to promote sustainable agriculture,
>biofuels, and renewable electricity) take a look at 
>
>http://www.realclimate.org
>
>very up to date with great analysis
>
>I. Peter Solem
>
>--- Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Also:
>>
>>http://enn.com/aff.html?id=1196
>>2005 Hottest Year On Record
>>March 28, 2006 - By Earth Policy Institute
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>
>>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2111772,00.html
>  
>
>>Published on Friday, March 31, 2006 by the Times/UK
>>
>>Antarctic Air is Warming Faster Than Rest of World
>>New finding could have implications for sea level
>>rises
>>
>>by Mark Henderson
>>
>> 
>>
>>AIR temperatures above the entire frozen continent
>>of Antarctica have 
>>risen three times faster than the rest of the world
>>during the past 
>>30 years.
>>
>>While it is well established that temperatures are
>>increasing rapidly 
>>in the Antarctic Peninsula, the land tongue that
>>protrudes towards 
>>South America, the trend has been harder to confirm
>>over the 
>>continent as a whole.
>>
>>Now analysis of weather balloon data by scientists
>>at the British 
>>Antarctic Survey (BAS) has shown that not only are
>>the lower reaches 
>>of the Antarctic atmosphere warming, but that they
>>are doing so at 
>>the fastest rate observed anywhere on Earth.
>>
>>Temperatures in the troposphere - the lowest 8km (5
>>miles) of the 
>>atmosphere - have increased by between 0.5C and 0.7
>>C (0.9F and 1.3F) 
>>per decade over the past 30 years.
>>
>>This signature of climate change is three times
>>stronger than the 
>>average observed around the world, suggesting that
>>global warming is 
>>having an uneven impact and that it could be greater
>>for Antarctica.
>>
>>It is already known that temperatures in the Arctic
>>are rising 
>>steeply, but with the exception of the Antarctic
>>peninsula, the data 
>>for the southern ice-cap are more mixed.
>>
>>Although the Antarctic peninsula has warmed by more
>>than 2.5C during 
>>the past 50 years, most surface measurements suggest
>>that there have 
>>been no pronounced temperature changes elsewhere on
>>the continent, 
>>while some have indicated a small cooling effect.
>>
>>The new research, led by John Turner, of the BAS,
>>shows that the air 
>>above the surface of Antarctica is definitely
>>warming, in ways that 
>>are not predicted by climate models and that cannot
>>yet be explained. 
>>The results are published today in the journal
>>Science.
>>
>>"The rapid surface warming of the Antarctic
>>Peninsula and the 
>>enhanced global warming signal over the whole
>>continent shows the 
>>complexity of climate change," Dr Turner said.
>>
>>"Greenhouses gases could be having a bigger impact
>>in Antarctica than 
>>across the rest of the world and we don't understand
>>why.
>>
>>"The warming above the Antarctic could have
>>implications for snowfall 
>>across the Antarctic and sea level rise. Current
>>climate model 
>>simulations don't reproduce the observed warming,
>>pointing to 
>>weaknesses in their ability to represent the
>>Antarctic climate 
>>system. Our next step is to try to improve the
>>models."
>>
>>The weather balloons from which the data has been
>>collected have been 
>>launched daily from many of Antarctica's research
>>stations since 
>>1957. These balloons carry instrument packages known
>>as radiosondes, 
>>which measure temperature, humidity and winds at
>>altitudes of 20km 
>>and beyond.
>>
>>The radiosonde data showed a pronounced warming
>>effect throughout the 
>>troposphere during the winter months, while the
>>stratosphere above 
>>cooled appreciably.
>>
>>There is increasing evidence that greenhouse gases
>>such as carbon 
>>dioxide are creating a blanket about the Earth that
>>traps heat at 
>>lower levels, warming the troposphere and surface,
>>while cooling the 
>>stratosphere above.
>>
>>The study is the third to be published this month to
>>suggest that the 
>>effects of global warming on Antarctica are likely
>>to be more 
>>pronounced than has often been predicted.
>>
>>Research has indicated that the melting of the
>>Greenland ice-cap in 
>>the Arctic could produce sea level rises that
>>destabilise Antarctic 
>>ice-shelves, and Nasa satellite data have shown the
>>internal 
>>Antarctic ice-sheets to be thinning.
>>
>>© Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.
>>
>>
>>___
>>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 th

Re: [Biofuel] Big Biodiesel creating a shortage of oil for me.

I was quite surprised myself,
when they said what they had done, but then when one considers I am just 
me and new as well and he has been hauling for years, they were afraid 
of the threat that it could be hard to get rid of the oil if something 
happened to me.  I have one that said they would let me have it for 
purchase starting in December when the contract is up for renewal.  This 
customer got mad at being cornered and  decided that he had  enough 
strong arm tactics, I just hope he feels that way in December when the 
contract is up.  We have 10 sources here and each one is contracted up 
for a year.  Even the one of the guys I was in coop with for tractor 
fuel pulled out for fear if something happened to me he would be stuck 
hauling the stuff.

I might add he told them that they would liable for strong fines from 
the EPA if I did not have a PERMIT to handle waste oil.  That is a fat 
lie.  I told the one operator that I am purchasing used oil (50 gallons 
in 5 gallon units, a month)and it does not fall under the same Criteria 
that the fine fellow that hauls off 1000 barrels has to live under.  I 
also said that I made a product that was legal, biodegradable, and paid 
all required taxes when applicable.

PS he also said that he has had to go to this trouble because of all the 
backyard wannabe biodiesel makers that make bad bio and sell it to there 
friends and avoid paying road taxes - he then told him to "do me a favor 
before he has to turn me in or I ruin my vehicle whichever comes first" 
(Let him turn me in I have not done anything wrong {including stealing}) 
[[ps I did send in a sample to a lab have partially tested and it was 
under 0.05 free Glyc. and met all the other home tests available]]

Anyway as more Competition for the "cheap" oil begins, it will be harder 
and harder for the organic individual folks to find and keep good 
sources.  May the mud slinging begin.

Jim

Appal Energy wrote:

>>he threatened all his customers to go on a 1 year
>>contract or he will pull his barrels.
>>
>>
>
>The smarter customers will let him pull them, put their own barrels in and 
>start working with people like you.
>
>And they'd be damned fools to sign a one year unbreakable contract in the 
>first place.
>
>Todd Swearingen
>
>
>
>
>JJJN wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hello every one,
>>
>>I have a slight problem,  The waste oil fellow that operates here has 
>>begun a very crafty business and has isolated my entire supply of fry 
>>oil.  he threatened all his customers to go on a 1 year contract or he 
>>will pull his barrels.  He also places in the contract that they must 
>>give all or nothing.  He is the only show in town so they are scared to 
>>allow any one else  buy the grease.  Since I will not steal grease I am 
>>without a source of used oil.
>>
>>This fellow sells to a Large Biodiesel plant out of State and can afford 
>>to do so as he charges $35 a month to haul it away so he can sell it for 
>>a good profit on the other end. 
>>
>>Since I produce to develop my wood preservative and wood stain  products 
>>this makes this makes it difficult to make a consistent product 
>>considering for the wood stuff I like the oxidized Bio oils over the 
>>animal fats.  The Animal Fats are superb Fuels for house and Generator 
>>but I havent tested them on wood yet.
>>
>>Anyway I thought you all may want to be fore warned that the race is on 
>>to secure Oil sources in this country, or at least in my neck of the 
>>woods. 
>>
>>I will start using Virgin Soy , Canola or some other oil for my stains 
>>but it will mean pricing will go up and I will loose that advantage.
>>
>>For running generators does any one have a better way to render oil from 
>>fat besides grinding and cooking?  I find this is very energy intensive 
>>for the returns.
>>
>>Good luck
>>Jim
>>
>>___
>>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:/

Re: [Biofuel] Antarctic Air is Warming Faster Than Rest of World

2006-04-04 Thread I. S.

For those interested in climate change (one of the
best reasons to promote sustainable agriculture,
biofuels, and renewable electricity) take a look at 

http://www.realclimate.org

very up to date with great analysis

I. Peter Solem

--- Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Also:
> 
> http://enn.com/aff.html?id=1196
> 2005 Hottest Year On Record
> March 28, 2006 - By Earth Policy Institute
> 
> --
> 
>
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2111772,00.html
> Published on Friday, March 31, 2006 by the Times/UK
> 
> Antarctic Air is Warming Faster Than Rest of World
> New finding could have implications for sea level
> rises
> 
> by Mark Henderson
> 
>  
> 
> AIR temperatures above the entire frozen continent
> of Antarctica have 
> risen three times faster than the rest of the world
> during the past 
> 30 years.
> 
> While it is well established that temperatures are
> increasing rapidly 
> in the Antarctic Peninsula, the land tongue that
> protrudes towards 
> South America, the trend has been harder to confirm
> over the 
> continent as a whole.
> 
> Now analysis of weather balloon data by scientists
> at the British 
> Antarctic Survey (BAS) has shown that not only are
> the lower reaches 
> of the Antarctic atmosphere warming, but that they
> are doing so at 
> the fastest rate observed anywhere on Earth.
> 
> Temperatures in the troposphere - the lowest 8km (5
> miles) of the 
> atmosphere - have increased by between 0.5C and 0.7
> C (0.9F and 1.3F) 
> per decade over the past 30 years.
> 
> This signature of climate change is three times
> stronger than the 
> average observed around the world, suggesting that
> global warming is 
> having an uneven impact and that it could be greater
> for Antarctica.
> 
> It is already known that temperatures in the Arctic
> are rising 
> steeply, but with the exception of the Antarctic
> peninsula, the data 
> for the southern ice-cap are more mixed.
> 
> Although the Antarctic peninsula has warmed by more
> than 2.5C during 
> the past 50 years, most surface measurements suggest
> that there have 
> been no pronounced temperature changes elsewhere on
> the continent, 
> while some have indicated a small cooling effect.
> 
> The new research, led by John Turner, of the BAS,
> shows that the air 
> above the surface of Antarctica is definitely
> warming, in ways that 
> are not predicted by climate models and that cannot
> yet be explained. 
> The results are published today in the journal
> Science.
> 
> "The rapid surface warming of the Antarctic
> Peninsula and the 
> enhanced global warming signal over the whole
> continent shows the 
> complexity of climate change," Dr Turner said.
> 
> "Greenhouses gases could be having a bigger impact
> in Antarctica than 
> across the rest of the world and we don't understand
> why.
> 
> "The warming above the Antarctic could have
> implications for snowfall 
> across the Antarctic and sea level rise. Current
> climate model 
> simulations don't reproduce the observed warming,
> pointing to 
> weaknesses in their ability to represent the
> Antarctic climate 
> system. Our next step is to try to improve the
> models."
> 
> The weather balloons from which the data has been
> collected have been 
> launched daily from many of Antarctica's research
> stations since 
> 1957. These balloons carry instrument packages known
> as radiosondes, 
> which measure temperature, humidity and winds at
> altitudes of 20km 
> and beyond.
> 
> The radiosonde data showed a pronounced warming
> effect throughout the 
> troposphere during the winter months, while the
> stratosphere above 
> cooled appreciably.
> 
> There is increasing evidence that greenhouse gases
> such as carbon 
> dioxide are creating a blanket about the Earth that
> traps heat at 
> lower levels, warming the troposphere and surface,
> while cooling the 
> stratosphere above.
> 
> The study is the third to be published this month to
> suggest that the 
> effects of global warming on Antarctica are likely
> to be more 
> pronounced than has often been predicted.
> 
> Research has indicated that the melting of the
> Greenland ice-cap in 
> the Arctic could produce sea level rises that
> destabilise Antarctic 
> ice-shelves, and Nasa satellite data have shown the
> internal 
> Antarctic ice-sheets to be thinning.
> 
> © Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.
> 
> 
> ___
> 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/
> 
> 

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

___

Re: [Biofuel] Fw: Doctor Doom?!

2006-04-04 Thread Garth & Kim Travis



Greetings,
Actually a high population has always resulted in new lands being opened
up.  I have always figured that the over-population of Earth meant
we would colonize the stars.  Each time we have opened a new area we
have grown in human rights for a short time, I hope that the move to the
stars will allow the human race to actually grow up and mature.  I
know, I am a dreamer, but it sure beats being a pessimist.
Bright Blessings,
Kim
At 12:16 PM 4/4/2006, you wrote:
Well, by not doing anything
about our overpopulation and unsustainable practices, aren't we all
implicitly accepting that eventually the ecosystem's immune system
(probably via diseases such as ebola) will react to the cancer than
humans have become, and bring us back under control.   
It's as if we're building daycare centers in the medians of busy
highways, and then get outraged when someone says that running over
children is good.  As far as I'm concerned, every major politician
who has rejected limits on our growth, is also publicly stating that they
favor the painful extermination of 90% of the human race. 
Ironically, Pianka's plan to kill 90% of the humans to save the earth
actually seems a bit anthropocentric to me.  The earth will survive
us, no matter what we do. It survived many other mass extinctions and
environmental changes before in it's history (including shifting to a
poisonous oxygen based atmosphere, and being slamming into by a mile wide
comet, which would be roughly equivalent to a global nuclear war). It is
only whether we will survive which is in question. He seems to think that
we are so important that we must do something or the earth is in danger
-- I think the ecosystem can take care of us on it's own if it has
to.  I for one don't want to be removed by the ecosystem's immune
system, but I don't think that it cares what I think. 
On 4/4/06, Fritz Friesinger
<
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 


 


 



Did anybody know about this here?

cracy enough to come out of Texas

forewardet by Fritz

 

 

 

31 March 2006

 

Meeting Doctor Doom 


Forrest M. Mims III

Copyright 2006 by Forrest M. Mims III.


Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he
heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a
world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 percent
of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner. Apparently at
the speaker's direction, the speech was not video taped by the Academy
and so Forrest's may be the only record of what was said. Forrest's
account of what he witnessed chilled my soul. Astonishingly, Forrest
reports that many of the Academy members present gave the speaker a
standing ovation. To date, the Academy has not moved to sanction the
speaker or distance itself from the speaker's remarks. 


If the professional community has lost its sense of moral outrage
when one if their own openly calls for the slow and painful extermination
of over 5 billion human beings, then it falls upon the amateur community
to be the conscience of science. 


Forrest, who is a member of the Texas Academy and chairs its
Environmental Science Section, told me he would be unable to describe the
speech in The Citizen Scientist because he has protested the speech
to the Academy and he serves as Editor of The Citizen Scientist .
Therefore, to preclude a possible conflict of interest, I have directed
Forrest to describe what he observed and his reactions in this special
feature, for which I have served as editor and which is being released a
week ahead of our normal publication schedule. Comments may be sent to
Backscatter . Shawn Carlson,
Ph.D., Founder and Executive Director,
Society for Amateur Scientists. 


  There is always something special about science meetings.
The 109th meeting of the
Texas Academy of Science
at Lamar University in Beaumont on 3-5 March 2006 was especially
exciting for me, because a student and his professor presented the
results of a DNA study I suggested to them last year. How fulfilling to
see the baldcypress ( Taxodium distichum ) leaves we collected last
summer and my tree ring photographs transformed into a first class
scientific presentation that's nearly ready to submit to a scientific
journal (Brian Iken and Dr. Deanna McCullough, "Bald Cypress of the
Texas Hill Country: Taxonomically Unique?" 109th Meeting of the
Texas Academy of Science Program and Abstracts [
PDF
], Poster P59, p. 84, 2006). 

But there was a gravely disturbing side to that otherwise
scientifically significant meeting, for I watched in amazement as a few
hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and
gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the
elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. The
speech was given by
Dr. Eric R.
Pianka (Fig. 1), the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and
lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006 Distinguished Texas
Scientist. 

Something curious occurr

Re: [Biofuel] Big Biodiesel creating a shortage of oil for me.

2006-04-04 Thread Appal Energy

> he threatened all his customers to go on a 1 year
> contract or he will pull his barrels.

The smarter customers will let him pull them, put their own barrels in and 
start working with people like you.

And they'd be damned fools to sign a one year unbreakable contract in the first 
place.

Todd Swearingen




JJJN wrote:

>Hello every one,
>
>I have a slight problem,  The waste oil fellow that operates here has 
>begun a very crafty business and has isolated my entire supply of fry 
>oil.  he threatened all his customers to go on a 1 year contract or he 
>will pull his barrels.  He also places in the contract that they must 
>give all or nothing.  He is the only show in town so they are scared to 
>allow any one else  buy the grease.  Since I will not steal grease I am 
>without a source of used oil.
>
>This fellow sells to a Large Biodiesel plant out of State and can afford 
>to do so as he charges $35 a month to haul it away so he can sell it for 
>a good profit on the other end. 
>
>Since I produce to develop my wood preservative and wood stain  products 
>this makes this makes it difficult to make a consistent product 
>considering for the wood stuff I like the oxidized Bio oils over the 
>animal fats.  The Animal Fats are superb Fuels for house and Generator 
>but I havent tested them on wood yet.
>
>Anyway I thought you all may want to be fore warned that the race is on 
>to secure Oil sources in this country, or at least in my neck of the 
>woods. 
>
>I will start using Virgin Soy , Canola or some other oil for my stains 
>but it will mean pricing will go up and I will loose that advantage.
>
>For running generators does any one have a better way to render oil from 
>fat besides grinding and cooking?  I find this is very energy intensive 
>for the returns.
>
>Good luck
>Jim
>
>___
>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] Big Biodiesel creating a shortage of oil for me.

Hello every one,

I have a slight problem,  The waste oil fellow that operates here has 
begun a very crafty business and has isolated my entire supply of fry 
oil.  he threatened all his customers to go on a 1 year contract or he 
will pull his barrels.  He also places in the contract that they must 
give all or nothing.  He is the only show in town so they are scared to 
allow any one else  buy the grease.  Since I will not steal grease I am 
without a source of used oil.

This fellow sells to a Large Biodiesel plant out of State and can afford 
to do so as he charges $35 a month to haul it away so he can sell it for 
a good profit on the other end. 

Since I produce to develop my wood preservative and wood stain  products 
this makes this makes it difficult to make a consistent product 
considering for the wood stuff I like the oxidized Bio oils over the 
animal fats.  The Animal Fats are superb Fuels for house and Generator 
but I havent tested them on wood yet.

Anyway I thought you all may want to be fore warned that the race is on 
to secure Oil sources in this country, or at least in my neck of the 
woods. 

I will start using Virgin Soy , Canola or some other oil for my stains 
but it will mean pricing will go up and I will loose that advantage.

For running generators does any one have a better way to render oil from 
fat besides grinding and cooking?  I find this is very energy intensive 
for the returns.

Good luck
Jim

___
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] Small oil press

Hmm,
That looks very much like my fat grinder, I wonder if a hamburger 
grinder with very small holes 1/6" would work?

I will try it, would flax seed have enough oil for a test?

Jim

Keith Addison wrote:

>Hi all
>
>Jason sent me a nicely drawn graphic of how the PITEBA oilpress could 
>work. It's here:
>
>http://journeytoforever.org/bflpics/oilpress.jpg
>
>Any comments?
>
>Best
>
>Keith
>
>
>  
>
>>Kieth,
>>If you look carefully at one of the close-up pics (
>>http://www.piteba.com/eng/index_eng.htm about halfway down) there is a hole
>>in the side of the reducer nipple (black iron, 1.5", about 0.90$US) that the
>>cake is squeezed out of around the adjustment screw. the only reason i could
>>think the price would be so high is the welding costs, a trained welder
>>would demand a lot of money for their work, even as simple as this. and as
>>for continuity, it wouldnt be perfect, but the oil could be drawn off by
>>funnel, and the cake could be shunted to a bigger basket as it falls. ill
>>see if i can get something put together for you in the near future, i doubt
>>ill have any numbers, but i can have a diagram pretty quick.
>>
>>Jason
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: 
>>Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 8:18 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Small oil press
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi Jason
>>>
>>>  
>>>
Its a piece of gas main with a helix press in it (like whats in a meat
grinder). the hardest part to find would be the press itself, but
everything
else is just off the shelf nickel and dime stuff. i really cant see
spending
100euros on it when i can build it for about 25. and stick a solar heated
Stirling on it, and you could use a bigger hopper and catch-pan and go
have
a sandwich or something.


>>>Thankyou!
>>>
>>>More or less what I thought. If it's an AT project then why's it so
>>>expensive and why don't they make free plans available? I saw
>>>something on their website about tropical use, sure, that's our focus
>>>too, but not that way. Maybe they see the NGOs and aid agencies as
>>>their market. Well, maybe, but I think what has to happen to this
>>>stuff is that you set it free so it can spread like a weed, if it
>>>works and it's wanted, or die if not.
>>>
>>>Could you put some plans together Jason? Made of common bits. As you
>>>say the helix press is the problem. I've never seen a discarded meat
>>>grinder in a junk pile or recycling centre, here nor elsewhere.
>>>Butchers use bigger ones, they must junk them sometimes. I guess they
>>>take a different route into the waste stream.
>>>
>>>Also, how could it be continuous? You'd have to stop every now and
>>>then to take the cake out, it doesn't look like it comes out the end
>>>all by itself like a meat grinder. Would a grinder still crush out
>>>the oil if it came out the end like that? Maybe if you made the holes
>>>smaller...
>>>
>>>Wonder what that blue-green stuff is in the other bottle.
>>>
>>>All best
>>>
>>>Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 3:12 AM
Subject: [Biofuel] Small oil press




>http://www.piteba.com/eng/index_eng.htm
>
>Sturdy oil expeller for the small scale professional
>
>- Manually operated
>
>- Continuous pressing of oil seeds
>
>- Up to 2 litres oil per hour
>
>- Processing up to 5 kg seed per hour
>
>- excellent for coconut cream production
>
>... it says.
>
>Price about 100 EURO.
>
>Any comments? Anyone have any experience of it? Is it made of
>plumbing parts? It looks like an Appropriate Technology project,
>maybe out of Wageningen University or something similar. Hm, 2 litres
>of oil for an hour of cranking that handle - are you putting in more
>muscle-power energy than you're getting out? Sounds like a case for
>Pimentel to me.
>
>Best
>
>Keith
>  
>
>
>
>___
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>  
>

___
Biofuel 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] acids

David,
The only place you are going to find 98% Acid is either a lab supply or 
a Chemical supply.  In the United States there is a Hazmat charge and a 
Homeland Security charge as well. (at least where I shop commercially)  
It also runs about $100.00 a gallon at that grade.  The Crap at the 
hardware store is about 25% if that.

I reccomend the base base if you are non commercial.  I make wood 
preservatives out of the stuff not auto fuel as my business therefore I 
can get around several of the triangles involved with buying supplies 
but I still must wash wash wash just like if I did make fuel.  I have 
tested some in my truck off road and found it to be great stuff but 
until I can pay taxes on it to both State and Federal I do not run it in 
a vehicle on a taxed road. (I also use it for generators and farm tractors.)

Jim

David Miller wrote:

>Johnathan Corgan wrote:
>  
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>>thsi is true that pool dealers mostly deal in muratic acid and not 
>>>sulphuric. in my youth as a pool boy i have never seen sulphuric acid 
>>>used in a pool. so it gets back to my problem of purchasing 
>>>concentrated sulphuric acid since i am an individual and have no tax 
>>>i.d. number.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>In my search for local sources of lye, I came across several hardware
>>stores (Home Depot, ACE, OSH) which carry "concentrated sulfuric acid."
>> If memory serves (I didn't pay close attention) it was for cleaning
>>septic tank lines, not drains, but was in the drain cleaner section of
>>the store.
>>
>>I don't know if the label "concentrated sulfuric acid" is standardized,
>>but I thought it meant 95%-98%.  It was a liquid in a dark plastic
>>bottle with a further sealed plastic bag around it, with a warning label
>>affixed to the outer bag.
>>
>>Something to check out, anyway.
>>  
>>
>>
>
>If you're just looking for amounts of sulfuric acid to test with, go to 
>any battery or auto parts store and ask for some battery acid. 
>
>--- David
>
>___
>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] off-topic [Hydroponic gardening]

2006-04-04 Thread Evergreen Solutions

Just wondering if anyone out there is into hydroponics. I'm getting
more into it myself, hoping to find a mentor w/ a little more
experience.

___
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] Haha

2006-04-04 Thread Mike Weaver

"Earlier today, in parts of the world, there was a total eclipse of the 
sun. President Bush said that the eclipse of the sun proves the 
unreliability of solar power." --David Letterman

"President Bush is in Mexico this week and while he's there, he's going 
to visit the ancient Mayan ruins. Apparently, Bush is trying to learn 
from his mistakes because today he promised that FEMA will help the 
Mayans rebuild." --Conan O'Brien

"This problem with illegal immigration is nothing new. In fact, the 
Indians had a special name for it. They called it 'white people.'" --Jay 
Leno


___
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: Doctor Doom?!

2006-04-04 Thread Hakan Falk


LOL Zeke,

Maybe you are right. -))

I only wanted to put the numbers on this and the light
on the fact that it is not an linear and equal world. With
the real numbers, Dr. Pianka's whole argument falls
apart and it becomes difficult to understand what he
want to say. Why would he want to so many dead,
when most of them have a very small footprint and only
20% of them uses 80% of the resources?

Hakan


At 21:08 04/04/2006, you wrote:
> > Reduce the over utilization by the 20% of
> > world population, will have the same effect and without killing anyone.
>
>Given how fiercely we (americans) defend our rediculous lifestyle, I
>wonder how many of the Americans who use an inordinate amount of
>resources would consider reducing their consumption to be just as bad
>as being killed...  I mean, if we are willing to give up freedom in
>the name of fighting terrorism, do you really expect us to give up
>comfort in the name of survival?
>
>On 4/4/06, Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This is stupid, because it assumes that the use of the world
> > resources have a linear relationship to the world population. The
> > reality is that it would have the same effect if we only got rid of
> > the Americans and only around 300 million of them. This mirror the
> > extreme imbalance in use of resources.
> >
> > Because of this, it is not necessary to take any extreme measure as
> > suggested. With growing lack of resources, it will not be enough for
> > the industrialized countries to continue the extreme over consumption
> > and they will have to adopt to a lower level. That would also
> > stabilize the resource utilization at an uniform level over the
> > current world population, close to the suggested for sustainability.
> > This means hat the goal of reduction can be met with conservation and
> > efficiency, which is a much nicer outcome than some sort of Nazi
> > theory of the survival of the superior and their footprint.
> >
> > We already know that the current situation and imbalances are crazy
> > from many point of views. Reduce the over utilization by the 20% of
> > world population, will have the same effect and without killing anyone.
> >
> > Hakan
> >
> >
> > At 18:43 04/04/2006, you wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Did anybody know about this here?
> > >cracy enough to come out of Texas
> > >forewardet by Fritz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >31 March 2006
> > >
> > >
> > >Meeting Doctor Doom
> > >
> > >Forrest M. Mims III
> > >
> > >Copyright 2006 by Forrest M. Mims III.
> > >
> > >Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he
> > >heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a
> > >world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90
> > >percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner.
> > >Apparently at the speaker's direction, the speech was not video
> > >taped by the Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what
> > >was said. Forrest's account of what he witnessed chilled my soul.
> > >Astonishingly, Forrest reports that many of the Academy members
> > >present gave the speaker a standing ovation. To date, the Academy
> > >has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance itself from the
> > >speaker's remarks.
> > >
> > >If the professional community has lost its sense of moral outrage
> > >when one if their own openly calls for the slow and painful
> > >extermination of over 5 billion human beings, then it falls upon the
> > >amateur community to be the conscience of science.
> > >
> > >Forrest, who is a member of the Texas Academy and chairs its
> > >Environmental Science Section, told me he would be unable to
> > >describe the speech in The Citizen Scientist because he has
> > >protested the speech to the Academy and he serves as Editor of The
> > >Citizen Scientist . Therefore, to preclude a possible conflict of
> > >interest, I have directed Forrest to describe what he observed and
> > >his reactions in this special feature, for which I have served as
> > >editor and which is being released a week ahead of our normal
> > >publication schedule. Comments may be sent to
> > >Backscatter . Shawn Carlson, Ph.D., Founder
> > >and Executive Director, Society for Amateur 
> Scientists.
> > >
> > >   There is always something special about science meetings. The
> > > 109th meeting of the Texas
> > > Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont on 3-5 March
> > > 2006 was especially exciting for me, because a student and his
> > > professor presented the results of a DNA study I suggested to them
> > > last year. How fulfilling to see the baldcypress ( Taxodium
> > > distichum ) leaves we collected last summer and my tree ring
> > > photographs transformed into a first class scientific presentation
> > > that's nearly ready to submit to a scientific journal (Brian Iken
> > > and Dr. Deanna McCullough, "Bald Cypress of the Texas Hil

Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules

2006-04-04 Thread Appal Energy

E.P.A. - Environmental Pretention Agency


Keith Addison wrote:

>Hi Robert
>
>  
>
>>It looks more like the "Endangering Permission Agency" . . .
>>
>>
>
>It's the Environment Prevention Agency, they're there to enforce the 
>protections accorded to industry in terms of the Endangered Polluters 
>Act. New-age Monopoly in the rock'n'rollback era, do not stop at Go, 
>do not go to Jail, please collect your two hundred thousand dollars 
>at the Revolving Door and your gasmask at Reception. Please drive a 
>Ford Pinto.
>
>Keith
>
>
>  
>
>>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5321132
>>
>>  A leaked document from the Environmental Protection Agency suggests
>>that the agency is considering a significant change in air-pollution
>>rules. It would give chemical factories, refineries and manufacturing
>>plants new leeway to increase emissions of pollutants that cause
>>cancer and birth defects.
>>
>>John Walke, who heads the clean-air program for the environmental
>>group Natural Resources Defense Council, says he received the document
>>
>>
>>from sources at the EPA who wanted the public to become aware of this
>  
>
>>"backward step."
>>
>>Currently, any factory that emits more than 25 tons of toxic chemicals
>>into the air each year must reduce its pollution as much as it
>>feasibly can. Walke says the draft proposal would give a break to
>>companies that own those plants. After they clean up, their only
>>requirement would be to keep their pollution below 25 tons a year.
>>
>>"Take an oil refinery that 10 years ago polluted 100 tons of toxic air
>>pollution," Walke says. "Due to the Clean Air Act, that refinery today
>>will emit only five tons of toxic air pollution. Under this EPA
>>proposal, that refinery can increase it's toxic pollution from five
>>tons to 25 tons."
>>
>>But Lorraine Gershman of the American Chemistry Council says there are
>>no incentives to increase emissions under the new rules.
>>
>>Gershman says her industry has been pushing EPA to make the changes
>>described in the draft rule. Under the current rules, even after the
>>factory cleans up, it's still considered a major polluter and is
>>required to keep monitoring its pollution and reporting what it learns
>>to the government. Under the draft proposal, these requirements would
>>disappear.
>>
>>"We believe it's EPA recognizing a lot of these major sources have
>>made in reducing their emissions and realizing that there should be
>>some sort of benefit of that, and that is reducing the administrative
>>burdens," Gershman says.
>>
>>Lobbyist Scott Segal, who represents refineries, says the proposal
>>will give big polluters the incentive to reduce pollution below that
>>25-ton-a-year cap.
>>
>>But EPA officials charged with running the air toxics programs outside
>>of Washington apparently disagree. In December, the regional officials
>>sent a letter to EPA headquarters warning that the draft rule would be
>>"detrimental to the environment and undermine the intent of the program."
>>
>>The letter criticizes EPA's draft rule for failing to analyze how many
>>companies might be encouraged to cut pollution and how many might
>>relax their pollution controls because they're already under the
>>threshold.
>>
>>In the draft rule, the EPA asserts that plants will not use the rule
>>to increase pollution because they'll want to "avoid negative
>>publicity and maintain their appearance as responsible businesses."
>>
>>But EPA's regional air toxic chiefs in their letter call that
>>statement unfounded and overly optimistic.
>>
>>EPA spokesperson Lisa Lybbert released a statement saying that
>>"commenting on the draft at this point in the process is like asking
>>us how a cake tastes when we haven't even put the batter in the oven."
>>
>>
>>robert luis rabello
>>"The Edge of Justice"
>>Adventure for Your Mind
>>http://www.newadventure.ca
>>
>>Ranger Supercharger Project Page
>>http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
>>
>>
>
>
>___
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>
>
>  
>

___
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: Doctor Doom?!

2006-04-04 Thread Paul S Cantrell

"Dr. Pianka says he would never advocate genocide or extermination
like some suggest he does."

UT Professor Clearing The Record On Speech
http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=4720390

On 4/4/06, Zeke Yewdall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Reduce the over utilization by the 20% of
> > world population, will have the same effect and without killing anyone.
>
> Given how fiercely we (americans) defend our rediculous lifestyle, I
> wonder how many of the Americans who use an inordinate amount of
> resources would consider reducing their consumption to be just as bad
> as being killed...  I mean, if we are willing to give up freedom in
> the name of fighting terrorism, do you really expect us to give up
> comfort in the name of survival?
>
> On 4/4/06, Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This is stupid, because it assumes that the use of the world
> > resources have a linear relationship to the world population. The
> > reality is that it would have the same effect if we only got rid of
> > the Americans and only around 300 million of them. This mirror the
> > extreme imbalance in use of resources.
> >
> > Because of this, it is not necessary to take any extreme measure as
> > suggested. With growing lack of resources, it will not be enough for
> > the industrialized countries to continue the extreme over consumption
> > and they will have to adopt to a lower level. That would also
> > stabilize the resource utilization at an uniform level over the
> > current world population, close to the suggested for sustainability.
> > This means hat the goal of reduction can be met with conservation and
> > efficiency, which is a much nicer outcome than some sort of Nazi
> > theory of the survival of the superior and their footprint.
> >
> > We already know that the current situation and imbalances are crazy
> > from many point of views. Reduce the over utilization by the 20% of
> > world population, will have the same effect and without killing anyone.
> >
> > Hakan
> >
> >
> > At 18:43 04/04/2006, you wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Did anybody know about this here?
> > >cracy enough to come out of Texas
> > >forewardet by Fritz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >31 March 2006
> > >
> > >
> > >Meeting Doctor Doom
> > >
> > >Forrest M. Mims III
> > >
> > >Copyright 2006 by Forrest M. Mims III.
> > >
> > >Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he
> > >heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a
> > >world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90
> > >percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner.
> > >Apparently at the speaker's direction, the speech was not video
> > >taped by the Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what
> > >was said. Forrest's account of what he witnessed chilled my soul.
> > >Astonishingly, Forrest reports that many of the Academy members
> > >present gave the speaker a standing ovation. To date, the Academy
> > >has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance itself from the
> > >speaker's remarks.
> > >
> > >If the professional community has lost its sense of moral outrage
> > >when one if their own openly calls for the slow and painful
> > >extermination of over 5 billion human beings, then it falls upon the
> > >amateur community to be the conscience of science.
> > >
> > >Forrest, who is a member of the Texas Academy and chairs its
> > >Environmental Science Section, told me he would be unable to
> > >describe the speech in The Citizen Scientist because he has
> > >protested the speech to the Academy and he serves as Editor of The
> > >Citizen Scientist . Therefore, to preclude a possible conflict of
> > >interest, I have directed Forrest to describe what he observed and
> > >his reactions in this special feature, for which I have served as
> > >editor and which is being released a week ahead of our normal
> > >publication schedule. Comments may be sent to
> > >Backscatter . Shawn Carlson, Ph.D., Founder
> > >and Executive Director, Society for Amateur 
> > >Scientists.
> > >
> > >   There is always something special about science meetings. The
> > > 109th meeting of the Texas
> > > Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont on 3-5 March
> > > 2006 was especially exciting for me, because a student and his
> > > professor presented the results of a DNA study I suggested to them
> > > last year. How fulfilling to see the baldcypress ( Taxodium
> > > distichum ) leaves we collected last summer and my tree ring
> > > photographs transformed into a first class scientific presentation
> > > that's nearly ready to submit to a scientific journal (Brian Iken
> > > and Dr. Deanna McCullough, "Bald Cypress of the Texas Hill Country:
> > > Taxonomically Unique?" 109th Meeting of the Texas Academy of
> > > Science Program and Abstracts [
> > > PDF ],
> >

Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules

2006-04-04 Thread robert luis rabello

Mike McGinness wrote:
> Robert,
> 
> The quotation below reported to be from "John Walke" contains some 
> inaccurate information.

> Perhaps it was just a bad example, but here in Texas most (if not all) 
> of the refineries were (and still are) exempt from the CAA and were 
> protected under a grandfather clause from enforcement as long as they 
> made no significant process changes or upgrades (Called new source 
> review, NSR). They were / are exempt if they were built before the CAA 
> was passed into law. Many had emissions well over 1000 tons per year, 
> and I think some still do! Texas passed a similar law (to the topics 
> proposed law)  a few years ago that gave grandfathered sources in Texas 
> such as refineries an opportunity to voluntarily make major 
> modifications to reduce emissions without going through formal BACT and 
> MACT (Best Available Control Technology, Maximum Achievable Control 
> Technology) permitting as long as the net result was reduced emissions.

I have heard of this, and what you've pointed out makes sense.  In 
fact, I've heard some people complaining that the Clean Air Act 
provisions have actually limited investment in refining capacity, 
resulting in gasoline supply bottlenecks that serve to increase prices 
at the pump.

Those "pesky environmentalists" make everything so expensive for the 
rest of us!

> The idea was that these facilities were avoiding making any changes 
> because they would trigger NSR and thus trigger forced, federally 
> mandated, MAJOR costly upgrade costs site wide based on MACT, BACT 
> requirements. The new rule allowed them to make voluntary changes that 
> reduced total emissions without triggering NSR permitting. Those 
> refineries that did not voluntarily enter the program and reduce 
> emissions were promised that new laws would be passed in a few years 
> eliminating the grandfather clause entirely thus forcing them into 
> buying BACT, MACT hardware site wide. Many joined the program 
> voluntarily and made major changes that reduced emissions substantially.

But would they have joined the voluntary program without the threat 
of legislation compelling them to do so?  I've seen the same sort of 
dynamic at play in California with respect to auto makers and 
emissions controls.

On one hand, I can understand the very reasonable point you're 
making:  It's better to get SOME movement forward in cleaning up big 
polluters than leaving current provisions in place that allow them to 
indefinately spew waste into the air without regulation.

But then, isn't the whole point of having the EPA in operation 
supposed to be about environmental protection?  Why should the EPA be 
interested in such a broad based loosening of clean air regulations? 
Haven't the very same companies that own polluting refineries made 
BILLIONS in profits over the last year or so?  Shouldn't some of those 
profits go into cleaning up the mess they're making of our air resource?

> I am not saying this proposed new rule should not be scrutinized for 
> unwarranted loopholes, but there are two sides to this story.

Of course!  And I appreciate you making that point.

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/

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

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

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

Re: [Biofuel] Fw: Doctor Doom?!

> Reduce the over utilization by the 20% of
> world population, will have the same effect and without killing anyone.

Given how fiercely we (americans) defend our rediculous lifestyle, I
wonder how many of the Americans who use an inordinate amount of
resources would consider reducing their consumption to be just as bad
as being killed...  I mean, if we are willing to give up freedom in
the name of fighting terrorism, do you really expect us to give up
comfort in the name of survival?

On 4/4/06, Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is stupid, because it assumes that the use of the world
> resources have a linear relationship to the world population. The
> reality is that it would have the same effect if we only got rid of
> the Americans and only around 300 million of them. This mirror the
> extreme imbalance in use of resources.
>
> Because of this, it is not necessary to take any extreme measure as
> suggested. With growing lack of resources, it will not be enough for
> the industrialized countries to continue the extreme over consumption
> and they will have to adopt to a lower level. That would also
> stabilize the resource utilization at an uniform level over the
> current world population, close to the suggested for sustainability.
> This means hat the goal of reduction can be met with conservation and
> efficiency, which is a much nicer outcome than some sort of Nazi
> theory of the survival of the superior and their footprint.
>
> We already know that the current situation and imbalances are crazy
> from many point of views. Reduce the over utilization by the 20% of
> world population, will have the same effect and without killing anyone.
>
> Hakan
>
>
> At 18:43 04/04/2006, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Did anybody know about this here?
> >cracy enough to come out of Texas
> >forewardet by Fritz
> >
> >
> >
> >31 March 2006
> >
> >
> >Meeting Doctor Doom
> >
> >Forrest M. Mims III
> >
> >Copyright 2006 by Forrest M. Mims III.
> >
> >Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he
> >heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a
> >world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90
> >percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner.
> >Apparently at the speaker's direction, the speech was not video
> >taped by the Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what
> >was said. Forrest's account of what he witnessed chilled my soul.
> >Astonishingly, Forrest reports that many of the Academy members
> >present gave the speaker a standing ovation. To date, the Academy
> >has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance itself from the
> >speaker's remarks.
> >
> >If the professional community has lost its sense of moral outrage
> >when one if their own openly calls for the slow and painful
> >extermination of over 5 billion human beings, then it falls upon the
> >amateur community to be the conscience of science.
> >
> >Forrest, who is a member of the Texas Academy and chairs its
> >Environmental Science Section, told me he would be unable to
> >describe the speech in The Citizen Scientist because he has
> >protested the speech to the Academy and he serves as Editor of The
> >Citizen Scientist . Therefore, to preclude a possible conflict of
> >interest, I have directed Forrest to describe what he observed and
> >his reactions in this special feature, for which I have served as
> >editor and which is being released a week ahead of our normal
> >publication schedule. Comments may be sent to
> >Backscatter . Shawn Carlson, Ph.D., Founder
> >and Executive Director, Society for Amateur Scientists.
> >
> >   There is always something special about science meetings. The
> > 109th meeting of the Texas
> > Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont on 3-5 March
> > 2006 was especially exciting for me, because a student and his
> > professor presented the results of a DNA study I suggested to them
> > last year. How fulfilling to see the baldcypress ( Taxodium
> > distichum ) leaves we collected last summer and my tree ring
> > photographs transformed into a first class scientific presentation
> > that's nearly ready to submit to a scientific journal (Brian Iken
> > and Dr. Deanna McCullough, "Bald Cypress of the Texas Hill Country:
> > Taxonomically Unique?" 109th Meeting of the Texas Academy of
> > Science Program and Abstracts [
> > PDF ],
> > Poster P59, p. 84, 2006).
> >
> >But there was a gravely disturbing side to that otherwise
> >scientifically significant meeting, for I watched in amazement as a
> >few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their
> >feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically
> >advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by
> >airborne Ebola. The speech was given by
> >

Re: [Biofuel] acids

2006-04-04 Thread bob allen

try

http://sciencestuff.com/


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> thsi is true that pool dealers mostly deal in muratic acid and not 
> sulphuric. in my youth as a pool boy i have never seen sulphuric acid 
> used in a pool. so it gets back to my problem of purchasing 
> concentrated sulphuric acid since i am an individual and have no tax 
> i.d. number.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:57:22 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] acids
> 
>   For those who can't acquire concentrated sulfuric locally, try Aqua
> Science, Columbus, Ohio.
> 
> www.aquascience.com
> 
> They don't distribute to individuals, so you'll need a tax ID number at
> hand.
> 
> Todd Swearingen
> 
> 
> greg Kelly wrote:
> 
>> I believe pool acid is "fuming" hydrochloric acid.
>> They may also sell sulfuric, but the mainstream
>> "juice" is HCL, and not very pure, at that. An easy
>> source of the chlorine for the disinfectant. Greg Kelly
>>
>> ___
>> 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/
> 
> 
>
> 
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Biofuel] Fw: Doctor Doom?!

2006-04-04 Thread Hakan Falk


This is stupid, because it assumes that the use of the world 
resources have a linear relationship to the world population. The 
reality is that it would have the same effect if we only got rid of 
the Americans and only around 300 million of them. This mirror the 
extreme imbalance in use of resources.

Because of this, it is not necessary to take any extreme measure as 
suggested. With growing lack of resources, it will not be enough for 
the industrialized countries to continue the extreme over consumption 
and they will have to adopt to a lower level. That would also 
stabilize the resource utilization at an uniform level over the 
current world population, close to the suggested for sustainability. 
This means hat the goal of reduction can be met with conservation and 
efficiency, which is a much nicer outcome than some sort of Nazi 
theory of the survival of the superior and their footprint.

We already know that the current situation and imbalances are crazy 
from many point of views. Reduce the over utilization by the 20% of 
world population, will have the same effect and without killing anyone.

Hakan


At 18:43 04/04/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Did anybody know about this here?
>cracy enough to come out of Texas
>forewardet by Fritz
>
>
>
>31 March 2006
>
>
>Meeting Doctor Doom
>
>Forrest M. Mims III
>
>Copyright 2006 by Forrest M. Mims III.
>
>Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he 
>heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a 
>world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 
>percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner. 
>Apparently at the speaker's direction, the speech was not video 
>taped by the Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what 
>was said. Forrest's account of what he witnessed chilled my soul. 
>Astonishingly, Forrest reports that many of the Academy members 
>present gave the speaker a standing ovation. To date, the Academy 
>has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance itself from the 
>speaker's remarks.
>
>If the professional community has lost its sense of moral outrage 
>when one if their own openly calls for the slow and painful 
>extermination of over 5 billion human beings, then it falls upon the 
>amateur community to be the conscience of science.
>
>Forrest, who is a member of the Texas Academy and chairs its 
>Environmental Science Section, told me he would be unable to 
>describe the speech in The Citizen Scientist because he has 
>protested the speech to the Academy and he serves as Editor of The 
>Citizen Scientist . Therefore, to preclude a possible conflict of 
>interest, I have directed Forrest to describe what he observed and 
>his reactions in this special feature, for which I have served as 
>editor and which is being released a week ahead of our normal 
>publication schedule. Comments may be sent to 
>Backscatter . Shawn Carlson, Ph.D., Founder 
>and Executive Director, Society for Amateur Scientists.
>
>   There is always something special about science meetings. The 
> 109th meeting of the Texas 
> Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont on 3-5 March 
> 2006 was especially exciting for me, because a student and his 
> professor presented the results of a DNA study I suggested to them 
> last year. How fulfilling to see the baldcypress ( Taxodium 
> distichum ) leaves we collected last summer and my tree ring 
> photographs transformed into a first class scientific presentation 
> that's nearly ready to submit to a scientific journal (Brian Iken 
> and Dr. Deanna McCullough, "Bald Cypress of the Texas Hill Country: 
> Taxonomically Unique?" 109th Meeting of the Texas Academy of 
> Science Program and Abstracts [ 
> PDF ], 
> Poster P59, p. 84, 2006).
>
>But there was a gravely disturbing side to that otherwise 
>scientifically significant meeting, for I watched in amazement as a 
>few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their 
>feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically 
>advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by 
>airborne Ebola. The speech was given by 
>Dr. Eric R. Pianka 
>(Fig. 1), the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard 
>expert who the Academy named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.
>
>Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An 
>official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the 
>front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. 
>The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of 
>the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away.
>
>This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when 
>Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general 
>public is not yet re

[Biofuel] Nice energy usage breakdow for a car

2006-04-04 Thread Tomas Juknevicius

Hi folks,
news entry at green car congress article @
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/national_academ.html
has some nice pictures with percentages of where the energy
from the fuel burned in the car engine is spent.

Or, use direct link:
http://bioage.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/tires1.png



The article itself is not very interesting though
--
Tomas Juknevicius



___
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] acids

2006-04-04 Thread David Miller

Johnathan Corgan wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>   
>> thsi is true that pool dealers mostly deal in muratic acid and not 
>> sulphuric. in my youth as a pool boy i have never seen sulphuric acid 
>> used in a pool. so it gets back to my problem of purchasing 
>> concentrated sulphuric acid since i am an individual and have no tax 
>> i.d. number.
>> 
>
> In my search for local sources of lye, I came across several hardware
> stores (Home Depot, ACE, OSH) which carry "concentrated sulfuric acid."
>  If memory serves (I didn't pay close attention) it was for cleaning
> septic tank lines, not drains, but was in the drain cleaner section of
> the store.
>
> I don't know if the label "concentrated sulfuric acid" is standardized,
> but I thought it meant 95%-98%.  It was a liquid in a dark plastic
> bottle with a further sealed plastic bag around it, with a warning label
> affixed to the outer bag.
>
> Something to check out, anyway.
>   

If you're just looking for amounts of sulfuric acid to test with, go to 
any battery or auto parts store and ask for some battery acid. 

--- David

___
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 EPA Rules

Hi Robert

>It looks more like the "Endangering Permission Agency" . . .

It's the Environment Prevention Agency, they're there to enforce the 
protections accorded to industry in terms of the Endangered Polluters 
Act. New-age Monopoly in the rock'n'rollback era, do not stop at Go, 
do not go to Jail, please collect your two hundred thousand dollars 
at the Revolving Door and your gasmask at Reception. Please drive a 
Ford Pinto.

Keith


>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5321132
>
>   A leaked document from the Environmental Protection Agency suggests
>that the agency is considering a significant change in air-pollution
>rules. It would give chemical factories, refineries and manufacturing
>plants new leeway to increase emissions of pollutants that cause
>cancer and birth defects.
>
>John Walke, who heads the clean-air program for the environmental
>group Natural Resources Defense Council, says he received the document
>from sources at the EPA who wanted the public to become aware of this
>"backward step."
>
>Currently, any factory that emits more than 25 tons of toxic chemicals
>into the air each year must reduce its pollution as much as it
>feasibly can. Walke says the draft proposal would give a break to
>companies that own those plants. After they clean up, their only
>requirement would be to keep their pollution below 25 tons a year.
>
>"Take an oil refinery that 10 years ago polluted 100 tons of toxic air
>pollution," Walke says. "Due to the Clean Air Act, that refinery today
>will emit only five tons of toxic air pollution. Under this EPA
>proposal, that refinery can increase it's toxic pollution from five
>tons to 25 tons."
>
>But Lorraine Gershman of the American Chemistry Council says there are
>no incentives to increase emissions under the new rules.
>
>Gershman says her industry has been pushing EPA to make the changes
>described in the draft rule. Under the current rules, even after the
>factory cleans up, it's still considered a major polluter and is
>required to keep monitoring its pollution and reporting what it learns
>to the government. Under the draft proposal, these requirements would
>disappear.
>
>"We believe it's EPA recognizing a lot of these major sources have
>made in reducing their emissions and realizing that there should be
>some sort of benefit of that, and that is reducing the administrative
>burdens," Gershman says.
>
>Lobbyist Scott Segal, who represents refineries, says the proposal
>will give big polluters the incentive to reduce pollution below that
>25-ton-a-year cap.
>
>But EPA officials charged with running the air toxics programs outside
>of Washington apparently disagree. In December, the regional officials
>sent a letter to EPA headquarters warning that the draft rule would be
>"detrimental to the environment and undermine the intent of the program."
>
>The letter criticizes EPA's draft rule for failing to analyze how many
>companies might be encouraged to cut pollution and how many might
>relax their pollution controls because they're already under the
>threshold.
>
>In the draft rule, the EPA asserts that plants will not use the rule
>to increase pollution because they'll want to "avoid negative
>publicity and maintain their appearance as responsible businesses."
>
>But EPA's regional air toxic chiefs in their letter call that
>statement unfounded and overly optimistic.
>
>EPA spokesperson Lisa Lybbert released a statement saying that
>"commenting on the draft at this point in the process is like asking
>us how a cake tastes when we haven't even put the batter in the oven."
>
>
>robert luis rabello
>"The Edge of Justice"
>Adventure for Your Mind
>http://www.newadventure.ca
>
>Ranger Supercharger Project Page
>http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/


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

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

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

Re: [Biofuel] Fw: Doctor Doom?!

The overpopulation myth:

Re: [Biofuel] Overpopulation Off Limits?
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg57949.html

Good analysis:

Human Population - Global Issues
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Population.asp

Best

Keith



>Well, by not doing anything about our overpopulation and 
>unsustainable practices, aren't we all implicitly accepting that 
>eventually the ecosystem's immune system (probably via diseases such 
>as ebola) will react to the cancer than humans have become, and 
>bring us back under control.It's as if we're building daycare 
>centers in the medians of busy highways, and then get outraged when 
>someone says that running over children is good.  As far as I'm 
>concerned, every major politician who has rejected limits on our 
>growth, is also publicly stating that they favor the painful 
>extermination of 90% of the human race.
>
>Ironically, Pianka's plan to kill 90% of the humans to save the 
>earth actually seems a bit anthropocentric to me.  The earth will 
>survive us, no matter what we do. It survived many other mass 
>extinctions and environmental changes before in it's history 
>(including shifting to a poisonous oxygen based atmosphere, and 
>being slamming into by a mile wide comet, which would be roughly 
>equivalent to a global nuclear war). It is only whether we will 
>survive which is in question. He seems to think that we are so 
>important that we must do something or the earth is in danger -- I 
>think the ecosystem can take care of us on it's own if it has to.  I 
>for one don't want to be removed by the ecosystem's immune system, 
>but I don't think that it cares what I think.
>
>On 4/4/06, Fritz Friesinger 
><[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Did anybody know about this here?
>cracy enough to come out of Texas
>forewardet by Fritz
>
>
>
>31 March 2006
>
>
>Meeting Doctor Doom
>
>Forrest M. Mims III
>
>Copyright 2006 by Forrest M. Mims III.
>
>Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he 
>heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a 
>world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 
>percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner. 
>Apparently at the speaker's direction, the speech was not video 
>taped by the Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what 
>was said. Forrest's account of what he witnessed chilled my soul. 
>Astonishingly, Forrest reports that many of the Academy members 
>present gave the speaker a standing ovation. To date, the Academy 
>has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance itself from the 
>speaker's remarks.
>
>If the professional community has lost its sense of moral outrage 
>when one if their own openly calls for the slow and painful 
>extermination of over 5 billion human beings, then it falls upon the 
>amateur community to be the conscience of science.
>
>Forrest, who is a member of the Texas Academy and chairs its 
>Environmental Science Section, told me he would be unable to 
>describe the speech in The Citizen Scientist because he has 
>protested the speech to the Academy and he serves as Editor of The 
>Citizen Scientist . Therefore, to preclude a possible conflict of 
>interest, I have directed Forrest to describe what he observed and 
>his reactions in this special feature, for which I have served as 
>editor and which is being released a week ahead of our normal 
>publication schedule. Comments may be sent to 
>Backscatter . Shawn Carlson, Ph.D., Founder 
>and Executive Director, Society for Amateur 
>Scientists.
>
>  There is always something special about science meetings. The 
>109th meeting of the Texas 
>Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont on 3-5 March 2006 
>was especially exciting for me, because a student and his professor 
>presented the results of a DNA study I suggested to them last year. 
>How fulfilling to see the baldcypress ( Taxodium distichum ) leaves 
>we collected last summer and my tree ring photographs transformed 
>into a first class scientific presentation that's nearly ready to 
>submit to a scientific journal (Brian Iken and Dr. Deanna 
>McCullough, "Bald Cypress of the Texas Hill Country: Taxonomically 
>Unique?" 109th Meeting of the Texas Academy of Science Program and 
>Abstracts [ 
>PDF ], 
>Poster P59, p. 84, 2006).
>
>But there was a gravely disturbing side to that otherwise 
>scientifically significant meeting, for I watched in amazement as a 
>few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their 
>feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically 
>advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by 
>airborne Ebola. The speech was give

Re: [Biofuel] acids

2006-04-04 Thread Johnathan Corgan

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> thsi is true that pool dealers mostly deal in muratic acid and not 
> sulphuric. in my youth as a pool boy i have never seen sulphuric acid 
> used in a pool. so it gets back to my problem of purchasing 
> concentrated sulphuric acid since i am an individual and have no tax 
> i.d. number.

In my search for local sources of lye, I came across several hardware
stores (Home Depot, ACE, OSH) which carry "concentrated sulfuric acid."
 If memory serves (I didn't pay close attention) it was for cleaning
septic tank lines, not drains, but was in the drain cleaner section of
the store.

I don't know if the label "concentrated sulfuric acid" is standardized,
but I thought it meant 95%-98%.  It was a liquid in a dark plastic
bottle with a further sealed plastic bag around it, with a warning label
affixed to the outer bag.

Something to check out, anyway.

-Johnathan

___
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 EPA Rules

2006-04-04 Thread Mike McGinness



Robert,
The quotation below reported to be from "John Walke" contains some inaccurate
information.
Specifically the statement says:

"Take an oil refinery that 10 years ago polluted 100 tons of toxic air
  pollution," Walke says. "Due to the Clean Air Act, that refinery today
  will emit only five tons of toxic air pollution. Under this EPA
  proposal, that refinery can increase it's toxic pollution from five
  tons to 25 tons."


Perhaps it was just a bad example, but here in Texas most (if not
all) of the refineries were (and still are) exempt from the CAA and were
protected under a grandfather clause from enforcement as long as they made
no significant process changes or upgrades (Called new source review, NSR).
They were / are exempt if they were built before the CAA was passed into
law. Many had emissions well over 1000 tons per year, and I think some
still do! Texas passed a similar law (to the topics proposed law) 
a few years ago that gave grandfathered sources in Texas such as refineries
an opportunity to voluntarily make major modifications to reduce emissions
without going through formal BACT and MACT (Best Available Control Technology,
Maximum Achievable Control Technology) permitting as long as the net result
was reduced emissions.
The idea was that these facilities were avoiding making any changes
because they would trigger NSR and thus trigger forced, federally mandated,
MAJOR costly upgrade costs site wide based on MACT, BACT requirements.
The new rule allowed them to make voluntary changes that reduced total
emissions without triggering NSR permitting. Those refineries that did
not voluntarily enter the program and reduce emissions were promised that
new laws would be passed in a few years eliminating the grandfather clause
entirely thus forcing them into buying BACT, MACT hardware site wide. Many
joined the program voluntarily and made major changes that reduced emissions
substantially.
The idea was to encourage these facilities to implement low to medium
cost changes that would immediately make major reductions  in their
emissions and substantially reduce local air pollution. Some of those changes
actually paid for themselves, some actually had an RTO, but none of these
companies were making any of these changes in the last 40 years before
the new law was passed for fear of triggering NSR.
It was an experiment in Texas environmental policy that worked.
I am not saying this proposed new rule should not be scrutinized for
unwarranted loopholes, but there are two sides to this story.
Best,
Mike McGinness
robert luis rabello wrote:
It looks more like the "Endangering Permission Agency"
. . .
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5321132
   A leaked document from the Environmental Protection Agency
suggests
that the agency is considering a significant change in air-pollution
rules. It would give chemical factories, refineries and manufacturing
plants new leeway to increase emissions of pollutants that cause
cancer and birth defects.
John Walke, who heads the clean-air program for the environmental
group Natural Resources Defense Council, says he received the document
from sources at the EPA who wanted the public to become aware of this
"backward step."
Currently, any factory that emits more than 25 tons of toxic chemicals
into the air each year must reduce its pollution as much as it
feasibly can. Walke says the draft proposal would give a break to
companies that own those plants. After they clean up, their only
requirement would be to keep their pollution below 25 tons a year.
"Take an oil refinery that 10 years ago polluted 100 tons of toxic air
pollution," Walke says. "Due to the Clean Air Act, that refinery today
will emit only five tons of toxic air pollution. Under this EPA
proposal, that refinery can increase it's toxic pollution from five
tons to 25 tons."



___
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 EPA Rules

Ooops. My bad.  I didn't realize that we were talking about faith
based pollution...

On 4/4/06, robert luis rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zeke Yewdall wrote:
>
> > What is the logic in a 25 ton cap?   Are all chemical factories the
> > same size?  25 tons for  large factory might actually very low,
> > compared to the total throughput of chemicals, but for a small factory
> > (say a homebrew biodiesel setup), a 25 ton allowance might be more
> > than it could possibly produce in a year if it used the dirtiest setup
> > possible.
>
> Can't you see the logic in the Brave New World of the Clear Skies
> Initiative?  That factory that's spewing out tons of pollution can buy
> pollution credits from your homebrew biodiesel operation.  Zeke, you
> could become a biodiesel entrepreneur!  The big polluters would PAY
> you for the right to wreck everyone else's air, and you wouldn't
> actually need to work for your money, nor make an actual product.
>
> Ain't it great?
>
> > And a ton of dioxin is not equal to a ton of NOx.  How can you
> > regulate it just by weight, even if all chemical plants were the same
> > size?
>
> Don't confuse the NeoCons with facts.  It's all about faith based
> initiatives, remember?
>
> robert luis rabello
> "The Edge of Justice"
> Adventure for Your Mind
> http://www.newadventure.ca
>
> Ranger Supercharger Project Page
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
>
>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>

___
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 Age of Autism: Hot potato on the Hill

I agree with this -- vaccines protect against a particular disease,
that has been a problem in the past -- such as polio, etc...   I think
it is folly to not protect ourselves from a known hazard with a known
tool we have available.   But like you said, a healthy immune system
is the only thing to protect us from a new disease X that comes along,
and we should remember than a vaccine very limited in what it will
protect us from, unlike our immune system, which will try to handle
anything thrown at it, with varying success.


>Vaccinations are akin, i.e, similar, to prescription
> drugs in the sense that they give
> one the feeling that "all is fine now." It is a false hope.

On 4/3/06, D. Mindock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Zeke,
>Well, let's say your immune system has been tweaked via vaccinations for
> diseases D, P, T and along
> comes disease X. If your immune system is down due to illness, say
> influenza, disease X will have an
> open door.
>My point is that vaccinations give some help for the known major
> diseases, but there are so many out
> there, thousands, that can invade your body and cause grief. It is much
> smarter, and more effective, to
> keep the immune system running at high efficiency, all the time. This is
> what I attempt to do. Exercise and
> optimal nutrition are super important for this.
>There are a few beneficial prescription drugs, but most only are there to
> placate the patient. ( People have
> been manipulated via TV ads to believe that there's a pill for every
> disease.) It is the patient's
> body/mind/spirit which does any "curing" of disease.
>   Med docs are very good at acute illness, accidents. But for chronic
> disease, um, I don't think so. In most
> cases lifestyle changes as in diet or exercise or nutrition can do wonders.
> Peace, D. Mindock  P.S. Vaccinations are akin, i.e, similar, to prescription
> drugs in the sense that they give
> one the feeling that "all is fine now." It is a false hope.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Age of Autism: Hot potato on the Hill
>
>
> > I'd like to take issue with one item -- vaccines are not something to
> > mask symptoms of having a weak immune systems.  They are to boost the
> > natural ability of the immune system against a particular organism by
> > training it to produce antibodies to that organism.  Whether the
> > particulars of the vaccine are the best can be argued about, but it
> > doesn't make much sense to attack the concept of vaccines --
> > especially implying that they are the same as prescription drugs,
> > which in many cases I agree are designed to mask symptoms of our
> > unhealthy lifestyle/diet/etc.
> >
> > Zeke
> >
> > On 4/3/06, D. Mindock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  I myself am no fan of the
> >> concept of vaccinations. It is akin to prescription drugs which only mask
> >> symptoms but do nada to clear the root cause of the disease. If folks
> >> would
> >> give care to building healthy immune systems they'd be much further
> >> ahead.
> >> We are not told this very often,
> >> are we? Big Drugs is a well-entrenched system in the minds of most folks.
> >> They will hock their car and then their house to get those drugs. There
> >> are
> >> thousands of disease out there for which only a healthy immune system can
> >> handle. I say, beef up your immune system and give the thumbs down to the
> >> FDA and Big Pharma.
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Fw: Doctor Doom?!

Well, by not doing anything about our overpopulation and unsustainable practices, aren't we all implicitly accepting that eventually the ecosystem's immune system (probably via diseases such as ebola) will react to the cancer than humans have become, and bring us back under control. It's as if we're building daycare centers in the medians of busy highways, and then get outraged when someone says that running over children is good. As far as I'm concerned, every major politician who has rejected limits on our growth, is also publicly stating that they favor the painful extermination of 90% of the human race.
Ironically, Pianka's plan to kill 90% of the humans to save the earth actually seems a bit anthropocentric to me. The earth will survive us, no matter what we do. It survived many other mass extinctions and environmental changes before in it's history (including shifting to a poisonous oxygen based atmosphere, and being slamming into by a mile wide comet, which would be roughly equivalent to a global nuclear war). It is only whether we will survive which is in question. He seems to think that we are so important that we must do something or the earth is in danger -- I think the ecosystem can take care of us on it's own if it has to. I for one don't want to be removed by the ecosystem's immune system, but I don't think that it cares what I think.
On 4/4/06, Fritz Friesinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Did anybody know about this here?
cracy enough to come out of Texas
forewardet by Fritz
31 March 2006

Meeting Doctor Doom
Forrest M. Mims III
Copyright 2006 by Forrest M. Mims III.
Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims
told me about a speech he heard at the Texas Academy of
Science during which the speaker, a world-renowned ecologist,
advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human
species in a most horrible and painful manner. Apparently at
the speaker's direction, the speech was not video taped by the
Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what was
said. Forrest's account of what he witnessed chilled my soul.
Astonishingly, Forrest reports that many of the Academy
members present gave the speaker a standing ovation. To date,
the Academy has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance
itself from the speaker's remarks.
If the professional community has lost
its sense of moral outrage when one if their own openly calls
for the slow and painful extermination of over 5 billion human
beings, then it falls upon the amateur community to be the
conscience of science.
Forrest, who is a member of the Texas
Academy and chairs its Environmental Science Section, told me
he would be unable to describe the speech in The Citizen
Scientist because he has protested the speech to the
Academy and he serves as Editor of The Citizen Scientist
. Therefore, to preclude a possible conflict of interest,
I have directed Forrest to describe what he observed and his
reactions in this special feature, for which I have served as
editor and which is being released a week ahead of our normal
publication schedule. Comments may be sent to Backscatter . Shawn
Carlson, Ph.D., Founder and Executive Director, Society for Amateur
Scientists.
There is always something
special about science meetings. The 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of
Science at Lamar University in Beaumont on 3-5 March 2006
was especially exciting for me, because a student and his
professor presented the results of a DNA study I suggested to
them last year. How fulfilling to see the baldcypress (
Taxodium distichum ) leaves we collected last summer
and my tree ring photographs transformed into a first class
scientific presentation that's near

Re: [Biofuel] The Age of Autism: Hot potato on the Hill

2006-04-04 Thread bob allen

Garth & Kim Travis wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> About polio, I do believe there is some research that has tied polio to 
> organophosphate fertilizers.

organophosphates are insecticides, inorganic phosphates are fertilizers. 
  And most the sites which claim that polio is not caused by a virus, 
but rather by chemicals choose to blame organochlorine insecticides.

http://www.geocities.com/harpub/overview.htm

  http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/pesticides_polio.html


et al


  My father and grandfather both had polio,

so did my cousin, a city boy in Chicago...


  my
> grandfather was 49 when he go it.  They had a farm although they lived in 
> the city by then and had used the chemicals about 10 years before they were 
> both struck.  The problem with the trace back was the time between exposure 
> and the outbreak of the disease.  There were 3 or 4 different strains of 
> polio and there is some question about the causes of each strain, some may 
> have been a virus but some were cause by exposure to toxic chemicals.  In 
> the early years of chemical fertilizers, there were no warning about 
> exposure so the chemicals were handled with bare hands and no masks.  It 
> was cases like my grandfather, adults getting what was suppose to be a 
> child's disease that originally sparked the research.  I do not have the 
> references for this, I lost the information about 3 computer crashes ago, 
> so I am writing from memory.
> 
> Actually the vaccination that changed my world was rubella or German 
> measles.  When I was growing up, if a child in the neighborhood got German 
> measles, they had lots of company as every young girl that had not had the 
> disease was sent for a visit.  Our parents wanted us to catch this disease 
> before our child bearing years, for good reason.  Kids today can't believe 
> that parents would want a child to get sick.
> 
> Vaccination only work on exact strains.  The pneumonia vaccine is a good 
> example of that.  The popularity of it has dropped since there are so many 
> strains it does not protect against or look at the flu shots.  They have 
> proven to be worthless in the last few years.

oh, really?

> 
> Getting you proper amount of sleep, eating good clean food and removing 
> stress from your life can do more for you than the vaccines.

I would agree that sleep, diet and stress management help, but when 
combating communicable diseases vaccinations are a powerful weapon.


> 
> Bright Blessings,
> Kim
> 
> At 03:24 AM 4/4/2006, you wrote:
> 
>> On 4 Apr 2006, at 08:54, robert luis rabello wrote:
>>>   This may be true.  But I also remember polio, whooping cough and
>>> other nasty, debilitating diseases for which there was no cure and no
>>> effective treatment before vaccination.
>> Don't look now but Whooping Cough is still around.  Polio was
>> decreasing by the time the vaccine was released.  My public health
>> instructor used to say that more lives were saved by proper
>> sanitation than all the vaccines in the world.  I think she was right.
>>
>> Also, people that are vaccinated still come down with the diseases
>> they were vaccinated for.  Huh, how about that?
>>
>>> She's lucky she didn't grow up among a large population of other
>>> children who likewise DIDN'T get vaccinated.
>> But she did.  Rural Malaysia and lots of kids don't get vaccinated.
>> Pretty filthy conditions with the chickens running around everywhere.
>>
>>> I have spent many years in classrooms and I have YET to see a child
>>> adversely impacted by vaccinations.
>> Maybe the disabled children weren't in your classes.  They might have
>> been too disabled to make it in.
>>
>>> My own children have been
>>> vaccinated and routinely get their booster shots.  Neither of them
>>> suffer from health issues or learning problems, nor have any children
>>> in my extended family.
>> So you say.  You might be mentally omitting.  Also, who is to say
>> what will develop?
>>
>>> There has to be a better solution to this issue than either blithely
>>> believing every vaccine is harmless, or espousing a desire to rid the
>>> world of vaccines altogether.
>> Here we agree.  Like I said, I'm not an anti-vaccination wacko but
>> they just aren't safe enough for me or my family.  Me?  Lots of
>> problems.  I don't know that I blame the vaccines but I don't think
>> they helped all that much.  I certainly got plenty of childhood
>> diseases.
>>
>> You do it your way, I'll do it mine.
>>
>> Gary
>>
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 


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

"Science is what we have learned about how to kee

Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules

2006-04-04 Thread robert luis rabello

Zeke Yewdall wrote:

> What is the logic in a 25 ton cap?   Are all chemical factories the
> same size?  25 tons for  large factory might actually very low,
> compared to the total throughput of chemicals, but for a small factory
> (say a homebrew biodiesel setup), a 25 ton allowance might be more
> than it could possibly produce in a year if it used the dirtiest setup
> possible.

Can't you see the logic in the Brave New World of the Clear Skies 
Initiative?  That factory that's spewing out tons of pollution can buy 
pollution credits from your homebrew biodiesel operation.  Zeke, you 
could become a biodiesel entrepreneur!  The big polluters would PAY 
you for the right to wreck everyone else's air, and you wouldn't 
actually need to work for your money, nor make an actual product.

Ain't it great?

> And a ton of dioxin is not equal to a ton of NOx.  How can you
> regulate it just by weight, even if all chemical plants were the same
> size?

Don't confuse the NeoCons with facts.  It's all about faith based 
initiatives, remember?

robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/

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

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

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

Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules

What is the logic in a 25 ton cap?   Are all chemical factories the
same size?  25 tons for  large factory might actually very low,
compared to the total throughput of chemicals, but for a small factory
(say a homebrew biodiesel setup), a 25 ton allowance might be more
than it could possibly produce in a year if it used the dirtiest setup
possible.

And a ton of dioxin is not equal to a ton of NOx.  How can you
regulate it just by weight, even if all chemical plants were the same
size?



On 4/4/06, robert luis rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It looks more like the "Endangering Permission Agency" . . .
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5321132
>
>A leaked document from the Environmental Protection Agency suggests
> that the agency is considering a significant change in air-pollution
> rules. It would give chemical factories, refineries and manufacturing
> plants new leeway to increase emissions of pollutants that cause
> cancer and birth defects.
>
> John Walke, who heads the clean-air program for the environmental
> group Natural Resources Defense Council, says he received the document
> from sources at the EPA who wanted the public to become aware of this
> "backward step."
>
> Currently, any factory that emits more than 25 tons of toxic chemicals
> into the air each year must reduce its pollution as much as it
> feasibly can. Walke says the draft proposal would give a break to
> companies that own those plants. After they clean up, their only
> requirement would be to keep their pollution below 25 tons a year.
>
> "Take an oil refinery that 10 years ago polluted 100 tons of toxic air
> pollution," Walke says. "Due to the Clean Air Act, that refinery today
> will emit only five tons of toxic air pollution. Under this EPA
> proposal, that refinery can increase it's toxic pollution from five
> tons to 25 tons."
>
> But Lorraine Gershman of the American Chemistry Council says there are
> no incentives to increase emissions under the new rules.
>
> Gershman says her industry has been pushing EPA to make the changes
> described in the draft rule. Under the current rules, even after the
> factory cleans up, it's still considered a major polluter and is
> required to keep monitoring its pollution and reporting what it learns
> to the government. Under the draft proposal, these requirements would
> disappear.
>
> "We believe it's EPA recognizing a lot of these major sources have
> made in reducing their emissions and realizing that there should be
> some sort of benefit of that, and that is reducing the administrative
> burdens," Gershman says.
>
> Lobbyist Scott Segal, who represents refineries, says the proposal
> will give big polluters the incentive to reduce pollution below that
> 25-ton-a-year cap.
>
> But EPA officials charged with running the air toxics programs outside
> of Washington apparently disagree. In December, the regional officials
> sent a letter to EPA headquarters warning that the draft rule would be
> "detrimental to the environment and undermine the intent of the program."
>
> The letter criticizes EPA's draft rule for failing to analyze how many
> companies might be encouraged to cut pollution and how many might
> relax their pollution controls because they're already under the
> threshold.
>
> In the draft rule, the EPA asserts that plants will not use the rule
> to increase pollution because they'll want to "avoid negative
> publicity and maintain their appearance as responsible businesses."
>
> But EPA's regional air toxic chiefs in their letter call that
> statement unfounded and overly optimistic.
>
> EPA spokesperson Lisa Lybbert released a statement saying that
> "commenting on the draft at this point in the process is like asking
> us how a cake tastes when we haven't even put the batter in the oven."
>
>
> robert luis rabello
> "The Edge of Justice"
> Adventure for Your Mind
> http://www.newadventure.ca
>
> Ranger Supercharger Project Page
> http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
>
>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>

___
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 Age of Autism: Hot potato on the Hill

2006-04-04 Thread bob allen

Gary L. Green wrote:
> On 4 Apr 2006, at 08:54, robert luis rabello wrote:
>>  This may be true.  But I also remember polio, whooping cough and
>> other nasty, debilitating diseases for which there was no cure and no
>> effective treatment before vaccination.
> 
> Don't look now but Whooping Cough is still around. 


yes, but what is the current incidence compared to a pre-vaccination 
time period?  How about current morbidity and mortality? I going to take 
a wild guess that all three measures are down compared to before the 
initiation of vaccinations.



  Polio was
> decreasing by the time the vaccine was released.

not true. Although this claim is all over the internet, the claim 
depends on very selective use of the time span of data examined.

for instance, if you examine the graphic here:
http://www.vaclib.org/basic/polio.htm

it seems the the decrease in the incidence began before the use of 
vaccines, but if you look here:

http://www.healthheritageresearch.com/images/PolioCases.jpg


it is not so obvious.  What you see is considerable variation of the 
short term incidence, as you might expect with communicable disease 
outbreaks.  If you clumped the data by taking a running average (over 
say a few years) the data are entirely consistent with reduction  in 
communicable disease via vaccinations.



  My public health
> instructor used to say that more lives were saved by proper  
> sanitation than all the vaccines in the world.  I think she was right.


i certainly won't argue about the value simple hygiene.

> 
> Also, people that are vaccinated still come down with the diseases  
> they were vaccinated for.  Huh, how about that?

No health care intervention is perfect, including  vaccines. Occasional 
individual don't seroconvert, and people outgrow the immunity conferred.
The current mumps outbreak in Iowa is probably do to the latter.

All in all however, I suspect any public agency responsible for health 
care endorses vaccination.

> 
>> She's lucky she didn't grow up among a large population of other
>> children who likewise DIDN'T get vaccinated.
> 
> But she did.  Rural Malaysia and lots of kids don't get vaccinated.   
> Pretty filthy conditions with the chickens running around everywhere.
> 
>> I have spent many years in classrooms and I have YET to see a child
>> adversely impacted by vaccinations.
> 
> Maybe the disabled children weren't in your classes.  They might have  
> been too disabled to make it in.

>> My own children have been
>> vaccinated and routinely get their booster shots.  Neither of them
>> suffer from health issues or learning problems, nor have any children
>> in my extended family.
> 
> So you say.  You might be mentally omitting.  Also, who is to say  
> what will develop?
> 
>> There has to be a better solution to this issue than either blithely
>> believing every vaccine is harmless, or espousing a desire to rid the
>> world of vaccines altogether.
> 
> Here we agree.  Like I said, I'm not an anti-vaccination wacko but  
> they just aren't safe enough for me or my family.  Me?  Lots of  
> problems.  I don't know that I blame the vaccines but I don't think  
> they helped all that much.  I certainly got plenty of childhood  
> diseases.
> 
> You do it your way, I'll do it mine.
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 


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

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

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

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

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

[Biofuel] Fw: Doctor Doom?!

2006-04-04 Thread Fritz Friesinger




 



  
  

  


  

  

  
 

  

  

  

  
 

  

  

  
  


  

  


  
Did anybody know about this here?
cracy enough to come out of Texas
forewardet by Fritz
 
 
 
31 March 2006
 
  


  

  
  

  Meeting Doctor Doom 
  Forrest M. Mims III
  Copyright 2006 by Forrest M. Mims III.
  Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims 
  told me about a speech he heard at the Texas Academy of 
  Science during which the speaker, a world-renowned ecologist, 
  advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human 
  species in a most horrible and painful manner. Apparently at 
  the speaker's direction, the speech was not video taped by the 
  Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what was 
  said. Forrest's account of what he witnessed chilled my soul. 
  Astonishingly, Forrest reports that many of the Academy 
  members present gave the speaker a standing ovation. To date, 
  the Academy has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance 
  itself from the speaker's remarks. 
  If the professional community has lost 
  its sense of moral outrage when one if their own openly calls 
  for the slow and painful extermination of over 5 billion human 
  beings, then it falls upon the amateur community to be the 
  conscience of science. 
  Forrest, who is a member of the Texas 
  Academy and chairs its Environmental Science Section, told me 
  he would be unable to describe the speech in The Citizen 
  Scientist because he has protested the speech to the 
  Academy and he serves as Editor of The Citizen Scientist 
  . Therefore, to preclude a possible conflict of interest, 
  I have directed Forrest to describe what he observed and his 
  reactions in this special feature, for which I have served as 
  editor and which is being released a week ahead of our normal 
  publication schedule. Comments may be sent to Backscatter . Shawn 
  Carlson, Ph.D., Founder and Executive Director, Society for Amateur 
  Scientists. 
    There is always something 
  special about science meetings. The 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of 
  Science at Lamar University in Beaumont on 3-5 March 2006 
  was especially exciting for me, because a student and his 
  professor presented the results of a DNA study I suggested to 
  them last year. How fulfilling to see the baldcypress ( 
  Taxodium distichum ) leaves we collected last summer 
  and my tree ring photographs transformed into a first class 
  scientific presentation that's nearly ready to submit to a 
  scientific journal (Brian Iken and Dr. Deanna McCullough, 
  "Bald Cypress of the Texas Hill Country: Taxonomically 
  Unique?" 109th Meeting of the Texas Academy of Science 
  Program and Abstracts [ PDF 
  ], Poster P59, p. 84, 2006). 
  But there was a gravely disturbing side to 
  that otherwise scientifically significant meeting, for I 
  watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas 
  Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing 
  ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the 
  elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne 
  Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. 
  Pianka (Fig. 1), the University of Texas evolutionary 
  ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006 
  Distinguished Texas Scientist. 
  Something curious occurred a minute before 
  Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a 
  video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and 
  engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did 
  not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to

[Biofuel] Time to get serious about inequality and sustainability

http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_inequality_and_sustainability.051101.htm
Synthesis/Regeneration (Fall 2005)
November 1, 2005

Time to get serious about inequality and sustainability

[Rachel's introduction: Strategies that tackle elite income and 
wealth, and thereby consumption, serve both an economic and a larger 
cultural purpose: They begin to give content to the ecologically and 
morally important principle that at some point "Enough is Enough" (or 
should be).]

by Gar Alperovitz

It's time for people who are serious about sustainability to open a 
direct, clear, and explicit challenge to the extreme inequalities of 
income and wealth which are among the most important drivers of 
unsustainable growth. This requires far more than the usual laundry 
list of (failing) progressive tax and other policies. There are also 
signs that the beginning points of a tough-minded program may be 
possible in many parts of the country.

Although we often talk in generalities about inequality, the fact is 
the numbers are far more dramatic than most people understand. The 
top 1% now garners for itself more income each year than the bottom 
100 million Americans taken together. The top 1% owns just under 50% 
of all investment capital. An only slightly larger elite group, the 
top 5%, owns slightly under 70% of financial wealth and more than 80% 
of unincorporated business assets. The most recent data (1999) showed 
a mere 0.2% at the very top making more money on the sale of stocks 
and bonds than all other taxpayers taken together. [1]

And of course this is only within the United States. Internationally, 
things are far worse. The richest 1% of people in the world have as 
much income each year as the poorest 57% taken together. The richest 
5% have incomes 114 times that of the poorest 5%. [2]

Quite apart from the indecency of these statistics, what needs to be 
confronted is their relationship to materialism in general and 
unsustainable consumption and production in particular. Ever more 
expansive materialism is driven in large measure by the pattern set 
by those who can afford upper level purchases. After "the rich and 
super- rich began a bout of conspicuous luxury consumption" in the 
early 1980s, Juliet Schor reports, members of "the upper middle class 
followed suit with their own imitative luxury spending..." In turn, 
the 80% below who lost ground also "engaged in a round of 
compensatory keeping-up consumption." [3]

Even at times when there is no worsening in the relative distribution 
of income, there is an expanding absolute gap between those at the 
top and those at the bottom. Thus: If you have $50,000 this year and 
I have $1,000 -- and next year you have $100,000 and I have $2,000 -- 
the relative distribution of income has not changed since the ratio 
between our incomes remains constant at 50 to 1. However, the real 
world distance between us has gone from $49,000 to $98,000.

Dynamic processes of the kind which systematically expand the gap 
between those at the top and those at the bottom generates a powerful 
"envy machine" -- a social and cultural dynamic in which even those 
who climb the ladder, step by step, regularly experience the space 
between the rungs getting greater and greater and the distance to the 
top farther and farther away as they climb (if, in fact, they do 
climb).

"Compensatory consumption" to keep up is also driven by factors which 
are not directly related to envy or status. Essential to getting into 
a top college is high quality primary and secondary education. 
However, for those who can only send their children to public schools 
this almost always requires purchasing a home in a neighborhood 
supportive of good schools -- i.e. a location where prices are 
inflated by high incomes at the top.

Again, the "arms race" among car buyers is not simply a matter of 
taste or status-striving. To the extent drivers of small, relatively 
fuel-efficient cars face the possibility of collision with a 7,500 
lb. Ford Expedition, they may understandably feel compelled to buy a 
larger car for the sake of safety of their families alone.

The capacity of top elites to keep raising the bar in connection with 
consumption is almost unlimited. Income received by the 10 most 
highly paid C.E.O.s in the US rose from an average of $3.5 million in 
1981 to $19.3 million in 1988. By the year 2000, however, it had 
skyrocketed to an average of $154 million -- for an overall gain of 
4,300%! Meanwhile workers' wages did little more than slightly 
out-pace inflation during the same decades. [4]

At the outset of the 20th century, Thorstein Veblen coined the phrase 
"conspicuous consumption" to describe a form of materialism which has 
far more to do with demonstrating one's place in society than it does 
with meeting a physical or other need. Modern researchers have 
documented related concepts -- including hunger for the kinds of 
"positional goods" which only elites can afford, pr

[Biofuel] Pollution: Where have all the baby boys gone?

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article355200.ece
Independent Online Edition > Environment

Pollution: Where have all the baby boys gone?

Every year, thousands of British babies who should be boys are born 
girls. The answer to this mystery could lie in a small town in 
Canada. Geoffrey Lean reports

Published: 02 April 2006

Something very strange is happening in a small but highly polluted 
Canadian community. And it may explain why every year thousands of 
British babies who should be boys are born as girls instead.

Young boys are becoming hard to find on the Chippewa Indian 
reservation in the gritty town of Sarnia, in Ontario's "Chemical 
Valley". It boasts four children's softball teams, but three of them 
are made up entirely of girls.

Research shows that the number of boys being born to the community 
has been dropping precipitously for the past 13 years, while the 
proportion of baby girls has risen. Now there are twice as many 
female births as male ones, though nature normally keeps the sexes in 
balance.

Scientists increasingly believe that pollution is to blame and that 
what has happened here - and among some other highly contaminated 
groups of people in other countries - may solve an enduring mystery 
of "missing boys" in maternity units throughout the industrialised 
world.

Normally, and with remarkable consistency around the globe, 106 boys 
are born for every 100 girls; the excess is thought to be nature's 
way of compensating for the fact that males were more likely to be 
killed through hunting and conflicts.

But this figure has been slowly declining in rich countries over the 
past quarter of a century. In Britain it has fallen to about 105 
since 1977 -which suggests that every year more than 3,000 babies are 
born as girls instead boys. Studies have revealed much the same story 
in the US, Canada, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries.

Suggested explanations have included increasing stress and rising 
numbers of single mothers; women in difficulties, it has been found, 
produce more girls than boys. But what is happening in Sarnia, on the 
US Canadian border, is increasingly turning the spotlight on 
pollution.

The Chippewa Indians of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation Community have 
long lived in the area, on the southern tip of Lake Huron, not far 
from Detroit. Their right to the land was confirmed in 1827, but much 
of it was taken over by industry in the 1960s.

Now their woods and homes are entirely surrounded by one of the 
world's most extensive petrochemical complexes, producing 40 per cent 
of Canada's entire output of plastics, synthetic rubber and other 
chemical compounds. The air stinks, and the ground is contaminated 
with high levels of dangerous pollutants.

It was those softball teams that first got the 870 people of the 
community thinking that many more girls than boys were being born. 
Among them was Ada Lockridge, a 42-year-old home help aide, who sits 
on the community's council. She and her sister had eight daughters 
between them, and only one son.

She started counting all the babies born to the community since 1984, 
Until 1993 girls and boys were in normal balance, but then the number 
of male births started plummeting. "I felt like I wanted to throw 
up," she says. "I did a lot of crying. And then I got angry."

She joined up with researchers from the University of Ottawa and 
together they published an article in a leading scientific journal. 
It reported "a significant ongoing decrease in the number of male 
births beginning in the early 1990s".

Only 35 per cent of babies now are boys, and there is no sign of the 
decline levelling off. The study could not prove a cause, but pointed 
the finger at "multiple chemical exposures over the years".

Other, non-native communities downwind of the complex also have less 
dramatic reductions in male births, while those upwind do not. And 
many studies have shown sex changes in fish and wildlife in the lake 
nearby.

Ada Lockridge points to a fire and chemical release at one of the 
chemical plants in 1993 as a possible culprit.

The findings tally with other research around the world. People 
exposed to high levels of dioxin in the 1976 accident in Seveso, 
Italy, also have twice as many girl as boy children. The same is true 
for Russian men exposed to pesticides containing the chemical.

And Brazilian scientists have reported that the proportion of boy 
babies fell in the most polluted parts of the city of São Paulo.

Professor Shanna Swan of the University of Ro chester, New York - not 
far from Sarnia - says that levels of contamination on the 
reservation are "incredible" and that the "first assumption" must be 
that they are to blame. She believes that changing sex ratios may 
often provide an indication of dangerous pollution, and that low 
levels of exposure to such ubiquitous chemicals as dioxins and PCBs 
may explain the decline in boys in industrialised countries.

Additional re

[Biofuel] The dangers of being poor and nonwhite

http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_unequal_exposure.060323.htm
Rachel's Democracy & Health News #848
Thursday, March 30, 2006

The dangers of being poor and nonwhite

[Rachel's introduction: The poor and communities of color are exposed 
to up to 10 times as much industrial pollution as their wealthier and 
whiter counterparts. In Massachusetts, if you live in a community of 
color, you are thirty times as likely to live in a highly polluted 
community, compared to a white community.]

By Tim Montague

Our government agencies may not know the true full extent or impacts 
of industrial pollution in the U.S. but they certainly recognize that 
pollution disproportionately impacts the poor and communities of 
color. As Carol Browner, former head of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) openly admits when speaking about air 
pollution, "Poor communities, frequently communities of color -- 
suffer disproportionately." She goes on, "If you look at where our 
industrialized facilities tend to be located, they're not in the 
upper middle class neighborhoods." To the contrary, the EPA's little 
known risk screening environmental indicators project -- reveals very 
clearly that the poor and minorities are living with far more than 
their fair share of toxic pollution.[1]

Using similar data in Massachusetts, Daniel Faber and Eric Krieg 
recently published a detailed study of how working poor and minority 
communities are disproportionately affected by industrial pollution 
from landfills, hazardous waste sites, incinerators and factories.[2]

People are forced to live in polluted communities by their economic 
circunstamces. In Massachusetts, more than 25 percent of all workers 
are "the working poor" -- they earn less $8.84/hr or $18,387/yr 
($18,400 was the federal poverty line for a family of four in 2003). 
And over three quarters of these families spend more than one-third 
of their income on housing. According to Faber and Krieg a family of 
four has to make at least $64,656 in Boston ($6,000 more than in New 
York) to "pay for basic necessities," and many families are forced by 
economic necessity to live in the least desirable, most 
industrialized communities.

For purposes of their study, Faber and Krieg define low- income 
communities as having a median income of less than $39,524/yr. for a 
family of four; and communities of color as those with more than 15% 
nonwhites.

They documented big disparities between rich and poor and between 
white and minority communities. And they trace the root causes of 
this disparity stem to the lack of political power.

"In order to bolster profits and competitiveness, industry typically 
adopts pollution strategies which... offer the path of least 
political resistance. The less political power a community possesses, 
the fewer resources a community has to defend itself; the lower the 
level of community awareness and mobilization against potential 
ecological threats, the more likely they are to experience arduous 
environmental and human health problems at the hands of business and 
government. As a result, poorer towns and communities of color suffer 
an unequal exposure to ecological hazards."[2, pg.1]

"The poor and communities of color face exposure to: (1) greater 
concentrations of polluting industrial facilities and power plants; 
(2) greater concentrations of hazardous waste sites and 
disposal/treatment facilities, including landfills, incinerators, and 
trash transfer stations; and (3) higher rates of "on the job" 
exposure to toxic pollutants inside the factory."[2, pg. 1]

EXPOSURE TO HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES

According to Faber and Krieg, Massachusetts has over 30,570 known 
hazardous waste sites. If all towns were of equal area, the average 
community would have 117 hazardous waste sites in it. But poor 
communities have an average of 203 hazardous waste sites per town -- 
double the state average. Medium and high income towns average just 
66 and 71 hazardous waste sites per town. Even the wealthy few are 
poisoning themselves with hazardous waste, but poor communities are 
three times more likely to have a hazardous waste site in their 
community than the wealthiest communities. Low-income communities 
have four times the density of hazardous waste sites compared to 
high- income communities (19.2 vs. 4.6 sites per square mile).[2, pg. 
2]

White communities (95% white) have an average of 39 hazardous waste 
sites per town. But communities of color have a whopping 297 sites 
per town -- 7.6 times that of white communities. And on a 
per-square-mile basis, communities of color average twenty-three 
times as many hazardous waste sites per square mile compared to 
predominantly white communities (48.3 vs. 2.1 sites per square mile).

EXPOSURE TO LANDFILLS AND INCINERATORS

It's well known that landfills and incinerators pose many serious 
health risks and that the people living near them suffer abnormal 
rates of cancer[3, 4, 5, 6] birth defects[

Re: [Biofuel] acids

2006-04-04 Thread ricalls

thsi is true that pool dealers mostly deal in muratic acid and not 
sulphuric. in my youth as a pool boy i have never seen sulphuric acid 
used in a pool. so it gets back to my problem of purchasing 
concentrated sulphuric acid since i am an individual and have no tax 
i.d. number.

-Original Message-
From: Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:57:22 -0400
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] acids

  For those who can't acquire concentrated sulfuric locally, try Aqua
Science, Columbus, Ohio.

www.aquascience.com

They don't distribute to individuals, so you'll need a tax ID number at
hand.

Todd Swearingen


greg Kelly wrote:

>I believe pool acid is "fuming" hydrochloric acid.
>They may also sell sulfuric, but the mainstream
>"juice" is HCL, and not very pure, at that. An easy
>source of the chlorine for the disinfectant. Greg Kelly
>
>___
>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/


   

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

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

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

[Biofuel] The Secret To Being As Radical As We Want To Be

http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_financing_activism_ourselves.060315.htm
www.adbusters.org
March 15, 2006

The Secret To Being As Radical As We Want To Be

[Rachel's introduction: The secret to being as radical as we want to 
be is to finance the revolution ourselves.]

By Michael Shuman and Merrian Fuller**

If Mohandas Gandhi were a typical North American activist these days, 
he would probably be wearing a three-piece suit and working in a 
plush office with his law degree prominently displayed. He would have 
little time to lead protests, since every other week would be spent 
meeting with donors -- and those power lunches would hardly go well 
with fasting. He would be careful to avoid salt marches or cotton 
boycotts, so as not to offend key donors. To sharpen his annual pitch 
to foundations, he would be constantly dreaming up new one-year 
projects on narrowly focused topics, perhaps a one-time conference on 
English human-rights abuses, or a documentary on anti-colonial 
activities in New Delhi. To ensure that various allies didn't steal 
away core funders, he would keep his distance and be inclined to 
trash talk behind their backs. In short, there's little doubt that 
the British would still be running India.

The problem with activism today is that it is largely funded by 
grants and gifts from rich foundations and individuals. The 
long-standing assumption that you can take the money with few strings 
attached, and then run, needs to be fundamentally reexamined.

Building a philanthropic base of support can cripple an 
organization's mission and wreck it altogether when the well runs 
dry. Most nonprofits have engaged in a kind of fundraising arms race 
in which our best leaders focus more time, energy and resources, not 
on changing the world, but on improving their panhandling prowess to 
capture just a little more of a philanthropic pie that actually 
expands very little from year to year. Armies of "development" staff 
spend as much as a third of an organization's resources, not to 
advance the poor, but to cultivate wealthy donors. Significant 
numbers of our colleagues create campaigns, direct-mail pitches, 
telemarketing scripts, newsletters and other products exclusively to 
"care and feed" prospects and to frame positions that will not offend 
the rich.

Nonprofit structures dictated by this mode of funding also burden 
organizers with the heavy regulatory hand of the state. To qualify 
for tax-deductible contributions, for example, US nonprofits must 
agree to limit lobbying and not to campaign for political causes of 
candidates.

We believe it's time for North American progressives to break free 
from the philanthropic plantation. Those of us serious about social 
change increasingly must get down to business, figuratively and 
literally. Every social change group may not be able to generate all 
its funding through revenue-generation, but every nonprofit certainly 
can generate a greater percentage than it is doing now. In other 
words, we should become our own funders. Once we start generating our 
own resources, we can invest them politically -- as corporations do 
now - largely without limitation, without wasting our time on 
fundraising appeals, without worrying about that next grant, without 
apologies.

To get a sense of the possibilities, check out Cabbages & Condoms, a 
popular restaurant in Bangkok. As your senses become intoxicated by 
the aromas of garlic, ginger, basil, galangal and lemongrass, you 
cannot avoid noticing the origins of the name. On top of each heavy 
wooden table is a slab of glass, under which are neatly arranged rows 
of colorful prophylactics. Posters and paintings adorn the half-dozen 
large rooms, all communicating the restaurant's central message: the 
AIDS epidemic afflicting Thailand can be checked only through the 
unabashed promotion and use of male contraception. With balloon 
animals made from carefully inflated and twisted condoms and the 
after-dinner candies replaced with your own take-home "condom-mints," 
even teens cannot escape the message prominently framed on the wall: 
"Sex is fun but don't be stupid -- use protection."

What makes the five "C&C" restaurants unique, along with an 
affiliated beach-front resort and numerous gift shops, is that they 
are all owned by the Population and Community Development Association 
(PDA), a rural development organization that has been a leader in 
promoting family planning and fighting aids in Thailand. Seven out of 
every ten dollars spent by the PDA on such activities as free 
vasectomies and mobile health clinics are covered by the net revenues 
from its 16 subsidiary for-profits. Were the PDA dependent on funding 
from the Thai government, the World Bank or even the Rockefeller 
Foundation, it no doubt would be told to tone down the message. Jokes 
on its website - like "the Cabbages and Condoms Restaurants in 
Thailand don't only present excellent Thai food, the food is 
guaranteed not

Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel course

2006-04-04 Thread ricalls

what fun is that. i have found the instructions on the JTF web site to 
be fairly completeand i am having steady success. after producing 5 gal 
of BD from WVO i will be using the acid method soon. give it a go and 
good luck.

-Original Message-
From: michael hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:45:28 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel course

   Try Low impact living initiative they run biodiesel courses in the uk 
i found their course good.
 Check out www.lililowimpact.org

 Cheers Myke

 Dietmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  Dear Sirs,

  is there anyone in Europe that teaches how to make biodiesel? I 
figured out how it ought to work in theory, but would very much 
appreciate someone expert to guide me through at least once.

 Best Regards

 Dietmar

 [Image removed] ___
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/

To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new 
Yahoo! Security Centre.
   ___
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] Antarctic Air is Warming Faster Than Rest of World

Also:

http://enn.com/aff.html?id=1196
2005 Hottest Year On Record
March 28, 2006 - By Earth Policy Institute

--

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2111772,00.html
Published on Friday, March 31, 2006 by the Times/UK

Antarctic Air is Warming Faster Than Rest of World
New finding could have implications for sea level rises

by Mark Henderson

 

AIR temperatures above the entire frozen continent of Antarctica have 
risen three times faster than the rest of the world during the past 
30 years.

While it is well established that temperatures are increasing rapidly 
in the Antarctic Peninsula, the land tongue that protrudes towards 
South America, the trend has been harder to confirm over the 
continent as a whole.

Now analysis of weather balloon data by scientists at the British 
Antarctic Survey (BAS) has shown that not only are the lower reaches 
of the Antarctic atmosphere warming, but that they are doing so at 
the fastest rate observed anywhere on Earth.

Temperatures in the troposphere - the lowest 8km (5 miles) of the 
atmosphere - have increased by between 0.5C and 0.7 C (0.9F and 1.3F) 
per decade over the past 30 years.

This signature of climate change is three times stronger than the 
average observed around the world, suggesting that global warming is 
having an uneven impact and that it could be greater for Antarctica.

It is already known that temperatures in the Arctic are rising 
steeply, but with the exception of the Antarctic peninsula, the data 
for the southern ice-cap are more mixed.

Although the Antarctic peninsula has warmed by more than 2.5C during 
the past 50 years, most surface measurements suggest that there have 
been no pronounced temperature changes elsewhere on the continent, 
while some have indicated a small cooling effect.

The new research, led by John Turner, of the BAS, shows that the air 
above the surface of Antarctica is definitely warming, in ways that 
are not predicted by climate models and that cannot yet be explained. 
The results are published today in the journal Science.

"The rapid surface warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and the 
enhanced global warming signal over the whole continent shows the 
complexity of climate change," Dr Turner said.

"Greenhouses gases could be having a bigger impact in Antarctica than 
across the rest of the world and we don't understand why.

"The warming above the Antarctic could have implications for snowfall 
across the Antarctic and sea level rise. Current climate model 
simulations don't reproduce the observed warming, pointing to 
weaknesses in their ability to represent the Antarctic climate 
system. Our next step is to try to improve the models."

The weather balloons from which the data has been collected have been 
launched daily from many of Antarctica's research stations since 
1957. These balloons carry instrument packages known as radiosondes, 
which measure temperature, humidity and winds at altitudes of 20km 
and beyond.

The radiosonde data showed a pronounced warming effect throughout the 
troposphere during the winter months, while the stratosphere above 
cooled appreciably.

There is increasing evidence that greenhouse gases such as carbon 
dioxide are creating a blanket about the Earth that traps heat at 
lower levels, warming the troposphere and surface, while cooling the 
stratosphere above.

The study is the third to be published this month to suggest that the 
effects of global warming on Antarctica are likely to be more 
pronounced than has often been predicted.

Research has indicated that the melting of the Greenland ice-cap in 
the Arctic could produce sea level rises that destabilise Antarctic 
ice-shelves, and Nasa satellite data have shown the internal 
Antarctic ice-sheets to be thinning.

© Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.


___
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] Small oil press