RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Michael S Briggs]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, kirk wrote:

> >Of course, the report now is that it was not uranium at all.
>
> LOL-- yes, once it was pointed out by many the story was BS the handlers
> revised it.
> What's the saying?
> "Let's run it up the flag pole and see if they salute it"
> Next justification will be "we have it on good authority he has suitcase
> nukes and we had best invade and remove them".

No, what it's saying is that the media can't report things properly,
and/or the officials in Turkey who initially reported it to the media
didn't know what they're talking about. Just take a look at some of the
initial reports that came out on 9/28,
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/28/turkey.uranium/index.html
(this is the one that I first read, and was why I wasn't thinking "weapons
grade uranium". It clearly says:
"Turkish officials said they did not know whether the uranium was refined
weapons-grade material or naturally occurring uranium, which would have to
be refined before it could be used in a weapon. However, they said they
did not believe the material posed a radiation danger."

Of course, most of the rest of the media ignored that and just started
claiming it was weapons grade uranium.

Or, the initial BBC report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2286597.stm
Which initially said:
"At first officers announced gave the quantity as 15 kilograms (34.5
pounds) but later explained that this included the weight of a lead
container.", and gave the actual weight of the suspect material as 100
grams (of course, this report left out the statement by the Turkish
officials that they weren't sure yet if it was weapons grade or what). As
the story spread from newspaper to newspaper, TV, etc., the fact that the
initial weight given (15 kg) included the lead container, and the
statement by the Turkish officials that they didn't know if it was weapons
grade uranium or what, were left out.

The media not being smart enough to get things straight does not add up to
a conspiracy.

> I notice you didn't defend ANFO cutting pillars. Perhaps you know something
> about explosives and brisance.

I've never looked into the Oklahoma City bombing. It's entirely possible
that explosives were also put on the columns. What does that have to do
with the price of tea in China?
I don't believe that JFK was killed by one gunmen. That doesn't
mean there aren't people trying to smuggle radioactive material to make
nuclear weapons to use in acts of terrorism.

> Invasion of pipelineistan soon. What a circus.

Go to Afghanistan and see what the average citizen there thinks of the US.

Despite the anti-US propaganda, Afghanis like us, because we have helped
them far more than all those who claim that the US is a bully for what we
have done there.

Mike


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Michael S Briggs]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote:

> > > So what? There are Americans who would like to overthrow the Bush
> > > regime too, and by force, and with the same stated aims.
> >
> >The difference is that the majority of Iraqis want Hussein out.
>
> Again, how do you know that? It's nothing but hearsay.

Check with the numerous groups started by Iraqis aimed at bringing a real
democracy to the country.

> And even if
> they did, what does that have to do with the US? It's simply none of
> your business.

So, we should have intervened in Tibet, but we shouldn't intervene in
Iraq? Why? When should the rest of the world intervene when a dictator is
allowing people within his own country to starve to death, killing those
who disagree with them, and could pose a threat to the rest of the world?
Should we never intervene? Then, should we also not send millions of tons
of food to people starving around the world? None of our business, right?
It's one way or the other - isolationism, or being involved in
world affairs. The western world has screwed up in the past - primarily
from allowing tyrants to come to power, or stay in power. My feeling is
that the UN should act together to help bring democracy to the entire
world, using force to overthrow tyrants when necessary. We shouldn't just
say "it's none of our business if he wants to kill his own people".

> >I agree - I don't think we should ever give any aid to any country that
> >doesn't guarantee all of its citizens basic civil/human rights (freedom of
> >speech, religion, etc.). We have made huge mistakes in our dealings in the
> >middle east. We supported Hussein in his war on Iran because we decided
> >Iran was the "lesser of two evils" - primarily because Iran attacked
> >Kuwaiti oil tankers. Supporting someone because they are slightly less
> >evil than someone else is ridiculous.
>
> I don't think "evil" has anything to do with it either way, it's
> entirely pragmatic who gets supported and who doesn't. I doubt Big
> Oil saw the loss of Kuwaiti oil tankers in terms of "evil", nor
> anything to do with such issues as civil/human rights, freedom of
> speech and religion. Didn't make for nice numbers. The coup against
> Mossadeq also had nothing to do with those things, just numbers, and
> billions of barrels.

As I've said, I agree that oil interests have played too large a role in
the international policies of essentially ALL first world countries -
including the US, but also pretty much all of Europe, Asia, etc. But, we
have also been actively involved when oil was not at all involved. As for
Iraq, Saddam was never a "puppet" of the US, as other countries
(especially France and the USSR) played a far greater role in supporting
him against Iran.
Did we come to the aid of South Korea because of oil? Did we come
to the aid of Vietnam because of oil? How much oil do we get by giving
millions of tons of food to starving people around the world?
As for getting involved in Iraq in 1991 - had the UN not booted
Iraq out of Kuwait, it's not inconceivable that Saddam would have sent his
forces into Saudi Arabia. He takes over Saudi Arabia, and suddenly he's in
control of about 2/3 of the world's oil supplies. You can pretend that the
only reason we didn't want that to happen was to protect Big Oil's
interests, but that is a huge oversimplification. Letting one tyrant be in
control of the majority of the world's oil would be a VERY bad thing,
particularly when that tyrant is someone who has shown he likes dropping
chemical weapons on villages of people he doesn't like.
A big reason why oil has played a large role in the international
affairs of EVERY developed nation (not just the US) is because of its
strategic importance. As long as essentially all of our cars, trucks,
planes, etc. run on oil, that is going to be the case. If you think it's
just about protecting the money of oil companies, then you are ignoring
the more important issue.

> >But, at the same time, when the leader of a country effectively declares
> >war on Americans, and offers rewards to anyone who kills an American, it
> >would be ridiculous to just pretend he'll leave us alone if we leave him
> >alone. "Live and let live" only works when BOTH groups involved use that
> >approach.
>
> But you haven't, have you? How many Middle Easterners would think the
> US has ever shown that attitude there?

In some countries not many, because they're subjected to anti-US,
anti-Israel propaganda from their state run media. If you put your faith
in media that labels all jews as "monkeys" and all americans as infidels,
that's the view you're going to end up with.
I have a friend who works for an international aid organization
removing landmines from countries. He recently spent almost a month in
Afghanistan, removing landmines from previous wars. Almost all of the
populace there is VERY pro-US, because they're incredibly thankful that we
booted the Taliban out. Of course

RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[kirk]

>Let me guess - you also agree with those who claim that there's no
>way a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/02, and that the US
>government staged the entire thing?


You lose your guess.
But if you think our hands are clean you are are mistaken.
I don't think you realize how structured the world already is.


>Of course, the report now is that it was not uranium at all.

LOL-- yes, once it was pointed out by many the story was BS the handlers
revised it.
What's the saying?
"Let's run it up the flag pole and see if they salute it"
Next justification will be "we have it on good authority he has suitcase
nukes and we had best invade and remove them".

I notice you didn't defend ANFO cutting pillars. Perhaps you know something
about explosives and brisance.

Invasion of pipelineistan soon. What a circus.

Kirk







-Original Message-
From: Michael S Briggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:54 AM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT



On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, kirk wrote:

> ARGH!
> U238 is not U235 and weapons grade is 60%U235 minimum. 15% is reactor
fuel.

The initial report I had read stated that they thought it was enriched to
15%. My mistake.
Of course, the report now is that it was not uranium at all.
See
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/273/world/Turkish_atomic_energy_institut:.sh
tml
Also, the weight initially given was wrong - the media had reported the
mass of the entire package, which was primarily a lead container, as 35
pounds. The actual item inside which was first believed to be enriched
uranium was only 5 ounces.

> Shielding is expressed in % attenuation. Gamma is not Alpha or Beta. How
> thick a layer to drop gamma fluence to what level?
> You are making assertions without factual data.
> U238 goes by the monniker "depleted uranium"-- for a reason.

Depleted uranium is almost entirely U-238 (U-235's natural occurence is
0.7% of uranium in the ground. Depleted uranium has less U-235 than that.
Anything with greater than 0.7% U-235 is "enriched"). The initial report I
had read called it enriched uranium, not weapons grade.

> If you continue to think Arabs are brain dead twits anxious to enter
> paradise with the first
> suicide mission at hand they are going to eat your lunch. Keep thinking
> "happy thoughts" if that's what it takes--but it will cost you. Oh well.

I don't think all Arabs are brain dead twits anxious to do a suicide run -
but I'm not ignorant enough to pretend that there aren't radical
extremists that are quite eager to do so.

As for me just "believing what I'm told" - nothing could be further from
the truth. But, I also don't instantly disbelieve everything the
government says, which you apparently do. My point with this thread was to
dispute your claim that there's no way someone could be carrying uranium
in their car under the seat, not to say that "well since the media
reported it it must be true".

Let me guess - you also agree with those who claim that there's no
way a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/02, and that the US
government staged the entire thing?

Mike



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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.393 / Virus Database: 223 - Release Date: 9/30/2002


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Michael S Briggs]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, kirk wrote:

> ARGH!
> U238 is not U235 and weapons grade is 60%U235 minimum. 15% is reactor fuel.

The initial report I had read stated that they thought it was enriched to
15%. My mistake.
Of course, the report now is that it was not uranium at all.
See
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/273/world/Turkish_atomic_energy_institut:.shtml
Also, the weight initially given was wrong - the media had reported the
mass of the entire package, which was primarily a lead container, as 35
pounds. The actual item inside which was first believed to be enriched
uranium was only 5 ounces.

> Shielding is expressed in % attenuation. Gamma is not Alpha or Beta. How
> thick a layer to drop gamma fluence to what level?
> You are making assertions without factual data.
> U238 goes by the monniker "depleted uranium"-- for a reason.

Depleted uranium is almost entirely U-238 (U-235's natural occurence is
0.7% of uranium in the ground. Depleted uranium has less U-235 than that.
Anything with greater than 0.7% U-235 is "enriched"). The initial report I
had read called it enriched uranium, not weapons grade.

> If you continue to think Arabs are brain dead twits anxious to enter
> paradise with the first
> suicide mission at hand they are going to eat your lunch. Keep thinking
> "happy thoughts" if that's what it takes--but it will cost you. Oh well.

I don't think all Arabs are brain dead twits anxious to do a suicide run -
but I'm not ignorant enough to pretend that there aren't radical
extremists that are quite eager to do so.

As for me just "believing what I'm told" - nothing could be further from
the truth. But, I also don't instantly disbelieve everything the
government says, which you apparently do. My point with this thread was to
dispute your claim that there's no way someone could be carrying uranium
in their car under the seat, not to say that "well since the media
reported it it must be true".

Let me guess - you also agree with those who claim that there's no
way a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/02, and that the US
government staged the entire thing?

Mike


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Keith Addison]

Mike

Probably "Sigh..." would be the best response.

>On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote:
>
> > So what? There are Americans who would like to overthrow the Bush
> > regime too, and by force, and with the same stated aims.
>
>The difference is that the majority of Iraqis want Hussein out.

Again, how do you know that? It's nothing but hearsay. And even if 
they did, what does that have to do with the US? It's simply none of 
your business.

> > The US has supported many brutal disctatorships in the past which did
> > just that - ah, but he's *our* dictator. And indeed, included among
> > them for quite a long time was Saddam Hussein, just as brutal then as
> > he is now. Times change, eh? Yesterday's freedom fighter, tomorrow's
> > terrorist.
>
>I agree - I don't think we should ever give any aid to any country that
>doesn't guarantee all of its citizens basic civil/human rights (freedom of
>speech, religion, etc.). We have made huge mistakes in our dealings in the
>middle east. We supported Hussein in his war on Iran because we decided
>Iran was the "lesser of two evils" - primarily because Iran attacked
>Kuwaiti oil tankers. Supporting someone because they are slightly less
>evil than someone else is ridiculous.

I don't think "evil" has anything to do with it either way, it's 
entirely pragmatic who gets supported and who doesn't. I doubt Big 
Oil saw the loss of Kuwaiti oil tankers in terms of "evil", nor 
anything to do with such issues as civil/human rights, freedom of 
speech and religion. Didn't make for nice numbers. The coup against 
Mossadeq also had nothing to do with those things, just numbers, and 
billions of barrels.

>But, at the same time, when the leader of a country effectively declares
>war on Americans, and offers rewards to anyone who kills an American, it
>would be ridiculous to just pretend he'll leave us alone if we leave him
>alone. "Live and let live" only works when BOTH groups involved use that
>approach.

But you haven't, have you? How many Middle Easterners would think the 
US has ever shown that attitude there?

> > >If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been
> > >saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in
> > >Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there
> > >is oil there?
> >
> > Are you quite certain you really want to ask me that, Mike? Because,
> > frankly, it doesn't say very much for you. Anyway, I've never said US
>
>Why?

If you insist. Because it's a spurious comparison, historically and 
in all other ways, there is nothing in common between Saddam 
Hussein's Iraq and Hitler's Germany; because oil played nothing 
remotely like the role then that it does now - as Hakan noted, it was 
a major issue in Japan's entering the war, but oil in today's Middle 
East is a completely different ball-game; and because of Godwin's Law 
- ie, it's a loaded question, and that reflects badly on you.

> >  Anyway, I've never said US
> > motivations in the Middle East are strictly based on oil, and I've
> > argued with those who have said that - just as much as with those
> > who've claimed they're not based on oil at all.
>
>That was just my point.

No, it was my point, and you agreed with it, then changed it for the 
sake of this Germany question.

> > >The fact is, some people are just plain evil (malicious, egocentric, and
> > >dangerous).
> >
> > That doesn't bother the US much, if at all. Evil's a bit emotive, but
> > malicious, egocentric, and dangerous, sure: Pinochet, Mobutu,
> > Savimbi, Marcos, Suharto... hey, what a long list, such nice fellers.
> > Sharon. You're backing Musharraf in Pakistan now, a military dictator
> > rolling back freedoms, allegedly sponsoring terrorist action in
> > Indian Kashmir.
>
>I think it's ridiculous that we back Musharraf. Back to the issue of
>backing the "lesser of two evils" - not a good policy. I also don't like
>Sharon, but he is the elected leader of a democratic country. That's a big
>difference between a self-appointed dictator.

That also has nothing to do with it, US foreign policy doesn't care 
if leaders are democratically elected or not. Allende was 
democratically elected. The US seems rather to prefer dictators, less 
complicated.

> > You backed a right bunch of bloodthirty murderers in
> > Afghanistan.
>
>Who, the Northern Alliance? I agree, we shouldn't have backed them at all.
>But, everytime there's any mention of sending US soldiers to take out a
>leader so we can help the people establish a democracy,

Sheesh!!! You are deluded. Go and study your history!

>people start
>screaming that we have no right to send troops in, to take out a leader,
>etc. etc.. So, instead we end up supporting an opposition group, which is
>a horrible way to do it. The model we follow for ANY military involvement
>around the world should be what we did with Germany and Japan in WWII -
>defeat the dictator, and follow MacArthur's plan for establishi

RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[kirk]

ARGH!
U238 is not U235 and weapons grade is 60%U235 minimum. 15% is reactor fuel.
Shielding is expressed in % attenuation. Gamma is not Alpha or Beta. How
thick a layer to drop gamma fluence to what level?
You are making assertions without factual data.
U238 goes by the monniker "depleted uranium"-- for a reason.

Your some lead, some water scenario shows you have not researched the
parameters at all and are willing to accept any BS as long as it comes from
a source you like. Why don't you ask a blaster if ANFO can cut concrete
columns from out in the street as in Okla City. Any licensed blaster should
do.Most miners could tell you as well. It seems most people accept that
fabrication as well.

If you continue to think Arabs are brain dead twits anxious to enter
paradise with the first
suicide mission at hand they are going to eat your lunch. Keep thinking
"happy thoughts" if that's what it takes--but it will cost you. Oh well.

Kirk





-Original Message-
From: Michael S Briggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 8:27 AM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT



On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, kirk wrote:

> >15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So, if it was 2
> >feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long), then the
> >cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's a
cylinder,
> >the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of 4 cm (a
> >little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit under a seat.
> >(sarcasm)
>
>
> You wouldn't be sarcastic for long with no shielding. You left shielding
out
> in your eagerness to stuff it under the seat.

Uranium enriched to 15% U-235 isn't all that radioactive. 85% of the
material is U-238 - I've held a large bar of U-238 in my hand.

A layer of lead would stop the x-rays from the U-235, and you could drop
the entire thing in some water to help block the neutrons. Of course, why
bother doing that when most terrorists would eagerly die for their cause?
Why is any shielding necessary to protect someone who wants to die for his
cause, particularly when the material to be shielded from isn't all that
radioactive?
That's a big factor that many people seem to keep forgetting -
logic goes flying out the window when you're dealing with people who WANT
to die for their cause. Prior to 9/11/01, everyone felt that if somebody
hijacks an airplane, you should just do what the hijackers ask, because
previously hijackers had almost always just landed the plane somewhere
else - after all, they didn't want to die themselves, right? Why would
extremists who eagerly fly planes into buildings be concerned about
shielding themselves from some mildly radioactive material, especially
when smuggling that material would allow them to kill millions of
infidels?

Mike
-
Michael S. Briggs   "Never judge a man until you've
UNH Physics Department  walked a mile in his shoes. Then
(603) 862-2828  when you do judge him, you'll be
a mile away and you'll have
his shoes."
---




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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 9/19/2002


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Michael S Briggs]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote:

> So what? There are Americans who would like to overthrow the Bush
> regime too, and by force, and with the same stated aims.

The difference is that the majority of Iraqis want Hussein out.

> The US has supported many brutal disctatorships in the past which did
> just that - ah, but he's *our* dictator. And indeed, included among
> them for quite a long time was Saddam Hussein, just as brutal then as
> he is now. Times change, eh? Yesterday's freedom fighter, tomorrow's
> terrorist.

I agree - I don't think we should ever give any aid to any country that
doesn't guarantee all of its citizens basic civil/human rights (freedom of
speech, religion, etc.). We have made huge mistakes in our dealings in the
middle east. We supported Hussein in his war on Iran because we decided
Iran was the "lesser of two evils" - primarily because Iran attacked
Kuwaiti oil tankers. Supporting someone because they are slightly less
evil than someone else is ridiculous.

But, at the same time, when the leader of a country effectively declares
war on Americans, and offers rewards to anyone who kills an American, it
would be ridiculous to just pretend he'll leave us alone if we leave him
alone. "Live and let live" only works when BOTH groups involved use that
approach.

> >If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been
> >saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in
> >Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there
> >is oil there?
>
> Are you quite certain you really want to ask me that, Mike? Because,
> frankly, it doesn't say very much for you. Anyway, I've never said US

Why?

>  Anyway, I've never said US
> motivations in the Middle East are strictly based on oil, and I've
> argued with those who have said that - just as much as with those
> who've claimed they're not based on oil at all.

That was just my point.

> >The fact is, some people are just plain evil (malicious, egocentric, and
> >dangerous).
>
> That doesn't bother the US much, if at all. Evil's a bit emotive, but
> malicious, egocentric, and dangerous, sure: Pinochet, Mobutu,
> Savimbi, Marcos, Suharto... hey, what a long list, such nice fellers.
> Sharon. You're backing Musharraf in Pakistan now, a military dictator
> rolling back freedoms, allegedly sponsoring terrorist action in
> Indian Kashmir.

I think it's ridiculous that we back Musharraf. Back to the issue of
backing the "lesser of two evils" - not a good policy. I also don't like
Sharon, but he is the elected leader of a democratic country. That's a big
difference between a self-appointed dictator.

> You backed a right bunch of bloodthirty murderers in
> Afghanistan.

Who, the Northern Alliance? I agree, we shouldn't have backed them at all.
But, everytime there's any mention of sending US soldiers to take out a
leader so we can help the people establish a democracy, people start
screaming that we have no right to send troops in, to take out a leader,
etc. etc.. So, instead we end up supporting an opposition group, which is
a horrible way to do it. The model we follow for ANY military involvement
around the world should be what we did with Germany and Japan in WWII -
defeat the dictator, and follow MacArthur's plan for establishing a
democracy in its place. But, the UN is totally opposed to that. They'd
rather leave a tyrant in power and put sanctions on the country, which
just leads to the populace starving. Oh yeah, that's more humane.

> If you declared war on Iraq over Kuwait, then why not on
> China over Tibet, or on Indonesia over East Timor? The US was deeply

We can't get involved in EVERY problem around the world. How about this -
why is it that the same people who wanted the US to take military action
against China for invading Tibet criticize the US for taking military
action in other similar cases (Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Bosnia, Somalia,
etc.)? We had agreements to protect those countries, and came to their aid
when they were attacked. People then scream that we shouldn't try to play
international policemen. But the same people then yell at us for not
stepping in when other countries are attacked. So, which is it - are we
bad because we come to the aid of some countries in need, or are we bad
because we don't come to the aid of every country that's in need? Why
isn't some of the blame placed on the people who are actually committing
the atrocities in the first place, rather than the US for not stopping
them all the time? (and then blaming us for when we do, saying it's none
of our business)
Did all of the "free Tibet" protesters ever wonder if perhaps the
US would have been more likely to do something if we didn't get criticized
(by the same people, and much of the world) every time we involved
ourselves in other similar world affairs?

> And so on and on. Whether leaders are malicious,
> egocentric, and dangerous just doesn't figure at all, it's whose
> "s

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Hakan Falk]

At 11:41 AM 10/1/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Hakan Falk wrote:
>
> > >If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been
> > >saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in
> > >Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there
> > >is oil there?
> >
> > You said so also and it was a courageous president who helped Europe,
> > behind the back of the congress and senate. Not until Japan attacked you
> > because of ? (yes oil), you got involved in the second world war. It might
>
>We were involved before then, but not with our own personnel. We had
>already sent large amounts of weapons to Great Britain (including 50
>destroyer battleships), in exchange for letting us lease military bases
>to set up military outposts.

Exactly what I said, your president did that on his own initiative with the 
outposts as an excuse. This because he could do it without the approval of 
the congress and senate. It was no political or popular support in US at 
the time, since the major attitude was isolationistic.


> > also
> > be a surprise to you that Soviet lost 100 on every allied soldier 
> killed and
>
>Yup, that was unfortunate. Of course, that number (I think the Soviet
>Union lost 25 million people roughly)

5 million soldiers against 500,000 soldiers for the western alliance. Not 
including civilian casualties. It is actually one to ten for Soviet Union 
and I made a mistake on the keyboard before.

>also includes a very large number of
>non-military personnel. And, it should be added that initially the Soviet
>Union had signed an agreement with Germany to be partially on their side,
>when the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east on September 17, 1939.
>Germany then turned on the Soviets, and attacked them about 18 months
>later.

It always puzzled me that UK and France started the second world war by 
declaring war with Germany and not Soviet Union, based on the treaty with 
Poland they should have. After all, Germany took the German one third of 
Poland that was allocated to Poland by the peace in first world war and 
Soviet Union the other two thirds. But if you read "Mein Kampf" you realize 
that Hitlers real enemies was Communism/Zionism and maybe the events 
following Poland was unexpected and he had reasons to believe that 
Britain/France would stay on the sidelines. My parents was voluntaries in 
Finland (nurse and surgeon), 1939 they fought against Germany/Soviet Union 
and 1942 Germany helped Finland against Soviet Union. After the second 
peace treaty with Soviet Union the Finish had to throw out the Germans by 
force.


> > that US contributed with 10% of the allied forces. But after the war my
> > generation
> > benefited from great entertainment and a fantastic time, we enjoyed 
> very much
> > all the war movies that showed US single handed winning the second world
> > war in Europe.
>
>Hollywood producers do not represent the sentiment of the American public.
>They make their living by either making stories up, or glorifying
>("improving upon") historical occurrences. I'd say that without the help
>of the US, it is not unlikely to believe that today much of Europe would
>be called "Germany" and be covered by flags with swastikas.

I already agreed with that and it was mainly the general US population with 
workers and the manufacturing that made the difference. The US troops was 
also a very important contribution, but slightly over valued by Hollywood 
as engaged in the war efforts and the continuing Cold War.

>However, that
>is not the same as saying that we single-handedly won the war - rather
>that we played a role that was integral in defetaing the axis powers (both
>in terms of materials - oil, weapons, etc., as well as in military
>personnel). Our naval and air forces made a huge impact.

Naval in the sense of production of transportation with convoy defender 
ships was huge and crucial. Air force in the sense of huge development and 
production of bombers for preparation before and after the invasion. The 
lonely defense by Britain's air and navy after the retreat from the 
mainland, was the hugest and most heroic fight in the second world war, 
supported by the US president not the US law makers.

> The UN Secutiry Council was created to make sure that such a thing
>never occurs again, when a tyrant is allowed to invade and conquer
>countries at his own whim, while other countries sit idly by thinking
>"well, he hasn't invaded us yet, so we're not going to do anything". If in
>1939, the US, the Soviets, Britain, and France immediately agreed to
>attack Germany after Hitler sent his forces into Poland, how many millions
>of lives would have been saved?

Britain and France actually did do it and tried to provoke Germany to 
attack the Mignot Line of defense. US was not involved and declared 
politically that they were not interested. Soviet Union was on Germany's 
side by agreement. As respo

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Keith Addison]

Michael S. Briggs wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote:
>
> > Now what does all that remind me of? Weak. If there were a smoking
> > gun we'd definitely know all about it beyond any doubt. Just oil. And
> > politics. The two hopelessly confused as ever, when it comes to the
> > US.
>
>I agree with you about oil and politics being hopelessly intertwined, and
>that oil (along with political gain) does have too much to do with our
>current motivation towards going after Iraq. But, there ARE other valid
>reasons as well. Do you know anyone from Iraq?

Yes.

>I work with a physicist who
>fled Iraq with his family years ago to escape. He, along with many other
>Iraqis, want Saddam ousted from power, and a true democratic government
>established.

So what? There are Americans who would like to overthrow the Bush 
regime too, and by force, and with the same stated aims.

>His regime is a regime of terror - not only threatening
>Israel and the US, but also neighboring countries, and killing large
>numbers of people within Iraq because of their ethnicity, religion, or
>just to test some weapons.

The US has supported many brutal disctatorships in the past which did 
just that - ah, but he's *our* dictator. And indeed, included among 
them for quite a long time was Saddam Hussein, just as brutal then as 
he is now. Times change, eh? Yesterday's freedom fighter, tomorrow's 
terrorist.

>If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been
>saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in
>Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there
>is oil there?

Are you quite certain you really want to ask me that, Mike? Because, 
frankly, it doesn't say very much for you. Anyway, I've never said US 
motivations in the Middle East are strictly based on oil, and I've 
argued with those who have said that - just as much as with those 
who've claimed they're not based on oil at all.

>The fact is, some people are just plain evil (malicious, egocentric, and
>dangerous).

That doesn't bother the US much, if at all. Evil's a bit emotive, but 
malicious, egocentric, and dangerous, sure: Pinochet, Mobutu, 
Savimbi, Marcos, Suharto... hey, what a long list, such nice fellers. 
Sharon. You're backing Musharraf in Pakistan now, a military dictator 
rolling back freedoms, allegedly sponsoring terrorist action in 
Indian Kashmir. You backed a right bunch of bloodthirty murderers in 
Afghanistan. If you declared war on Iraq over Kuwait, then why not on 
China over Tibet, or on Indonesia over East Timor? The US was deeply 
involved in the Indonesian genocide in the 60s, about a million 
Chinese killed. And so on and on. Whether leaders are malicious, 
egocentric, and dangerous just doesn't figure at all, it's whose 
"side" they're on, whose interests they serve, and that's all.

>Personally, I don't think our first priority right now should be going
>after Saddam.

Going after Saddam, taking "him" out... don't you feel a little 
uneasy about this depiction of Iraq as "Saddam", an entire nation and 
people reduced to one ultra-demonized man? When you see someone 
talking of "Saddam" you know what's coming next: calls for a 
"righteous" war. Saddam Hussein is not a maniacal monster, only the 
war-hungry in the US and Britain etc see him that way. He's not 
exactly a nice guy, you wouldn't want your sister to marry him, he's 
certainly most brutal, but no more so than many other brutish 
dictators around the world the US has propped up over the last 50 
years, not as bad as some, smarter than most. There's no evidence 
he's mad, nor even remotely irrational, nor demonic. He had a 
go-ahead from the US to invade Kuwait (April Glaspie). And he knows 
very well that using any WMDs he may have would get him rubbed right 
out very fast, and even short of that it would lose him his major 
victory so far - the withering of support for the US. It would unite 
the whole world against him. He's not dumb. He's no threat.

So how much does this next war really have to do with a rogue nation 
which allegedly has WMDs (of which there's no proof), and if they do 
have them, so what, or with the so-called war on terrorism, or with 
Big Oil interests, or with US elections and domestic popularity polls?

It doesn't have much if anything to do with your "other valid reasons".

>It should be securing the cold war era nukes and fissionable
>material (that are relatively poorly guarded) in the countries of the
>former Soviet Union, to try to prevent the MANY countries/organizations
>that want to get their hands on it from doing so. We should help Russia
>and the other countries build their economies, in exchange for letting us
>glassify all the fissionable material that's just sitting around.

The IMF reduced Russia's economy by 50%, something never before 
achieved in peacetime (and claims it as a success). This has done a 
great deal to make Russia's nuclear material very much less se

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Keith Addison]

>On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:13, you wrote:
>
> > Personally, I don't think our first priority right now should be going
> > after Saddam. It should be securing the cold war era nukes and fissionable
> > material (that are relatively poorly guarded) in the countries of the
> > former Soviet Union, to try to prevent the MANY countries/organizations
> > that want to get their hands on it from doing so. We should help Russia
> > and the other countries build their economies, in exchange for letting us
> > glassify all the fissionable material that's just sitting around.
> >
> > Mike
>
>   I think all fissionable material should be glassified, 
>including all the
>material in the US.
>   Our govt is talking about putting a tax levy to fund the war 
>- I am trying
>to think of a way to not have to give it to them. (I admit it - I dont like
>Saddam, the Israeli political system, Geo Bush et al, & our weak Prime
>Minister Little John Howard - but I don't think Saddam is the serious threat
>that the powers that be say he is.)
>
>My 2c worth, Doug


That's worth more than 2c, Doug - especially two Australians cents!

Keith


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Greg and April]

- Original Message -
From: "Michael S Briggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 09:41
Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT


>
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Hakan Falk wrote:
>
>
> > also
> > be a surprise to you that Soviet lost 100 on every allied soldier killed
and
>
> Yup, that was unfortunate. Of course, that number (I think the Soviet
> Union lost 25 million people roughly) also includes a very large number of
> non-military personnel.

Don't forget the Soviet Union would send in a battalion of men with maybe 2
dozen pistols, a dozen rifles, and 1 or 2 tanks ( if the battalion was
lucky ) because they had a bad weapon shortage ( this almost lost them the
war ), the rest of the men were expected to pick up the weapons of there
fallen comrades and captured enemy weapons. Tactics like this, lead to mass
combat fatalities.

If I remember right, the Soviet Union and Germany did not sign the Geneva
Convention regarding each others solders, so prisoners were treated worse
than other wise and many died for this reason alone.

Greg H.



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Bryan Fullerton]

Go live in Iraq then. While you are there tell one of his elite guard that
you dont like the way he dresses.. see how long you last..


- Original Message -
From: "Doug Foskey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT


> On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:13, you wrote:
>
> > Personally, I don't think our first priority right now should be going
> > after Saddam. It should be securing the cold war era nukes and
fissionable
> > material (that are relatively poorly guarded) in the countries of the
> > former Soviet Union, to try to prevent the MANY countries/organizations
> > that want to get their hands on it from doing so. We should help Russia
> > and the other countries build their economies, in exchange for letting
us
> > glassify all the fissionable material that's just sitting around.
> >
> > Mike
>
> I think all fissionable material should be glassified, including all the
> material in the US.
> Our govt is talking about putting a tax levy to fund the war - I am trying
> to think of a way to not have to give it to them. (I admit it - I dont
like
> Saddam, the Israeli political system, Geo Bush et al, & our weak Prime
> Minister Little John Howard - but I don't think Saddam is the serious
threat
> that the powers that be say he is.)
>
> My 2c worth, Doug
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Michael S Briggs]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Hakan Falk wrote:

> >If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been
> >saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in
> >Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there
> >is oil there?
>
> You said so also and it was a courageous president who helped Europe,
> behind the back of the congress and senate. Not until Japan attacked you
> because of ? (yes oil), you got involved in the second world war. It might

We were involved before then, but not with our own personnel. We had
already sent large amounts of weapons to Great Britain (including 50
destroyer battleships), in exchange for letting us lease military bases
to set up military outposts.

> also
> be a surprise to you that Soviet lost 100 on every allied soldier killed and

Yup, that was unfortunate. Of course, that number (I think the Soviet
Union lost 25 million people roughly) also includes a very large number of
non-military personnel. And, it should be added that initially the Soviet
Union had signed an agreement with Germany to be partially on their side,
when the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east on September 17, 1939.
Germany then turned on the Soviets, and attacked them about 18 months
later.

> that US contributed with 10% of the allied forces. But after the war my
> generation
> benefited from great entertainment and a fantastic time, we enjoyed very much
> all the war movies that showed US single handed winning the second world
> war in Europe.

Hollywood producers do not represent the sentiment of the American public.
They make their living by either making stories up, or glorifying
("improving upon") historical occurrences. I'd say that without the help
of the US, it is not unlikely to believe that today much of Europe would
be called "Germany" and be covered by flags with swastikas. However, that
is not the same as saying that we single-handedly won the war - rather
that we played a role that was integral in defetaing the axis powers (both
in terms of materials - oil, weapons, etc., as well as in military
personnel). Our naval and air forces made a huge impact.
The UN Secutiry Council was created to make sure that such a thing
never occurs again, when a tyrant is allowed to invade and conquer
countries at his own whim, while other countries sit idly by thinking
"well, he hasn't invaded us yet, so we're not going to do anything". If in
1939, the US, the Soviets, Britain, and France immediately agreed to
attack Germany after Hitler sent his forces into Poland, how many millions
of lives would have been saved?
Thus, the UN Security Council NEEDS to take action when another
tyrant starts invading countries at his own whim, and killing people
within his own country that he doesn't like. We can't just sit idly by and
say "well, he hasn't directly invaded our territory yet, so we're not
going to do anything". Unless we learn the errors of our past, we are
doomed to repeat them.
The UN should model its actions on the policies of Winston
Chirchill and FDR - in particular, FDR's "Four Freedoms Speech", and
acting together to create such a world (i.e. his speech to congress on
January 6, 1941 calling for congress to act to help establish a world
founded on freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom
from want, and freedom from fear.

But we're veering a bit off topic now. :)

Mike


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Kris Book]

I think that this song pretty much puts it all together.LOL

kris
 


From:  "ozregeneration" 
Date:  Mon Sep 30, 2002  4:00 am

The famous Vietnam War protest anthem written and performed
by Country Joe
McDonald at the historic Woodstock concert in 1969, has
been re-released with
updated lyrics to serve the rapidly growing anti-Iraqi War
movement.
http://www.healingcelebrations.com/iraqiwarsong.htm

http://www.healingcelebrations.com/ra/isong.ram

MUSICAL LYRICS:

Come on all of you dumbed down men.

The son of a Bush needs your help again.

He's got himself in a terrorist jam.

When daddy sent chemicals off to old Sadam, so

Roll up your sleeves for vaccines in your arm,

They don't tell you that their doing you harm!

And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for

Most know it's the same old scam, next stop is old Bhagdad.

And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates

Well, we've got no mind to question why, whoopee we're all
gonna die

Now prepare yourselves generals for the big blast

India and Pakistan are heating up fast

Why you should go out and kill Afghans is

Cause the only good Taliban is one that's dead.

They say global peace can only be won

When they blast us all to kingdom come

And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for

The clueless just don't give a damn, where the hell is
Pakistan?

And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates

With Prozak minds we don't care to know why,

whoopee we're all gonna die.

Now come on wall street don't be slow,

why man this is war so go-go.

There's plenty of big fortunes to be made,

by supplying the Chinese with the tools of its trade.

Just hope and pray that if they start the bombing,

they drop them on Osama Bin Laden.

And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for

Most know it's the same old scam, Wag-the-dog at old Sadam.

And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates

Well, we've got no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all
gonna die.

So come on mothers throughout the land

pack your boys off to old Bhagdad

come on fathers don't hesitate

send your girls too before their wedding date

Be the first ones on your block to have your kids

come home in a box

And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for

The clueless just don't give a damn, about the oil in
Afghanistan

And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates

Well, Rockefeller says the population's too high, and half
of us need to die.

So come on all of you dumbed down men,

The son of a Bush needs your help again,

He's got us all in a terrible jam.

Ousting daddy's partner old Sadam,

So don't roll up your sleeves for any shots in your arm.
It's just smarter to
stay on the farm. 
 
 



__
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Hakan Falk]

At 09:13 AM 10/1/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote:
>
> > Now what does all that remind me of? Weak. If there were a smoking
> > gun we'd definitely know all about it beyond any doubt. Just oil. And
> > politics. The two hopelessly confused as ever, when it comes to the
> > US.
>
>I agree with you about oil and politics being hopelessly intertwined, and
>that oil (along with political gain) does have too much to do with our
>current motivation towards going after Iraq. But, there ARE other valid
>reasons as well. Do you know anyone from Iraq? I work with a physicist who
>fled Iraq with his family years ago to escape. He, along with many other
>Iraqis, want Saddam ousted from power, and a true democratic government
>established. His regime is a regime of terror - not only threatening
>Israel and the US, but also neighboring countries, and killing large
>numbers of people within Iraq because of their ethnicity, religion, or
>just to test some weapons.
>
>If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been
>saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in
>Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there
>is oil there?

You said so also and it was a courageous president who helped Europe,
behind the back of the congress and senate. Not until Japan attacked you
because of ? (yes oil), you got involved in the second world war. It might 
also
be a surprise to you that Soviet lost 100 on every allied soldier killed and
that US contributed with 10% of the allied forces. But after the war my 
generation
benefited from great entertainment and a fantastic time, we enjoyed very much
all the war movies that showed US single handed winning the second world
war in Europe.

It was the great production capacity of US and the oil, that saved Europe and
we are always in debt to US. Because it saved Europe in the end, not Hollywood
heroes. US have been a great friend to Europe, that is for sure.

I am not saying this because I am against US in any way, I am on the record of
being very positive and worked many years with US. I am saying this because it
is the truth and must be said.


>The fact is, some people are just plain evil (malicious, egocentric, and
>dangerous).
>
>Personally, I don't think our first priority right now should be going
>after Saddam. It should be securing the cold war era nukes and fissionable
>material (that are relatively poorly guarded) in the countries of the
>former Soviet Union, to try to prevent the MANY countries/organizations
>that want to get their hands on it from doing so. We should help Russia
>and the other countries build their economies, in exchange for letting us
>glassify all the fissionable material that's just sitting around.
>
>Mike
>-
>Michael S. Briggs   "Never judge a man until you've
>UNH Physics Department  walked a mile in his shoes. Then
>(603) 862-2828  when you do judge him, you'll be
> a mile away and you'll have
> his shoes."
>-----------
>
>
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > >- Original Message -
> > >From: kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: 
> > >Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:42 AM
> > >Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set
> > >up...NOT
> > >
> > >
> > > > >15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So,
> > >if it was 2
> > > > >feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long),
> > >then the
> > > > >cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's
> > >a cylinder,
> > > > >the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of
> > >4 cm (a
> > > > >little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit
> > >under a seat.
> > > > >(sarcasm)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You wouldn't be sarcastic for long with no shielding. You left
> > >shielding out
> > > > in your eagerness to stuff it under the seat.
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Michael S Briggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:37 PM
> > > > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [biofuel] T

RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Michael S Briggs]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, kirk wrote:

> >15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So, if it was 2
> >feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long), then the
> >cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's a cylinder,
> >the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of 4 cm (a
> >little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit under a seat.
> >(sarcasm)
>
>
> You wouldn't be sarcastic for long with no shielding. You left shielding out
> in your eagerness to stuff it under the seat.

Uranium enriched to 15% U-235 isn't all that radioactive. 85% of the
material is U-238 - I've held a large bar of U-238 in my hand.

A layer of lead would stop the x-rays from the U-235, and you could drop
the entire thing in some water to help block the neutrons. Of course, why
bother doing that when most terrorists would eagerly die for their cause?
Why is any shielding necessary to protect someone who wants to die for his
cause, particularly when the material to be shielded from isn't all that
radioactive?
That's a big factor that many people seem to keep forgetting -
logic goes flying out the window when you're dealing with people who WANT
to die for their cause. Prior to 9/11/01, everyone felt that if somebody
hijacks an airplane, you should just do what the hijackers ask, because
previously hijackers had almost always just landed the plane somewhere
else - after all, they didn't want to die themselves, right? Why would
extremists who eagerly fly planes into buildings be concerned about
shielding themselves from some mildly radioactive material, especially
when smuggling that material would allow them to kill millions of
infidels?

Mike
-
Michael S. Briggs   "Never judge a man until you've
UNH Physics Department  walked a mile in his shoes. Then
(603) 862-2828  when you do judge him, you'll be
a mile away and you'll have
his shoes."
---



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Doug Foskey]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:13, you wrote:

> Personally, I don't think our first priority right now should be going
> after Saddam. It should be securing the cold war era nukes and fissionable
> material (that are relatively poorly guarded) in the countries of the
> former Soviet Union, to try to prevent the MANY countries/organizations
> that want to get their hands on it from doing so. We should help Russia
> and the other countries build their economies, in exchange for letting us
> glassify all the fissionable material that's just sitting around.
>
> Mike

I think all fissionable material should be glassified, including all 
the 
material in the US.
Our govt is talking about putting a tax levy to fund the war - I am 
trying 
to think of a way to not have to give it to them. (I admit it - I dont like 
Saddam, the Israeli political system, Geo Bush et al, & our weak Prime 
Minister Little John Howard - but I don't think Saddam is the serious threat 
that the powers that be say he is.)

My 2c worth, Doug


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Michael S Briggs]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote:

> Now what does all that remind me of? Weak. If there were a smoking
> gun we'd definitely know all about it beyond any doubt. Just oil. And
> politics. The two hopelessly confused as ever, when it comes to the
> US.

I agree with you about oil and politics being hopelessly intertwined, and
that oil (along with political gain) does have too much to do with our
current motivation towards going after Iraq. But, there ARE other valid
reasons as well. Do you know anyone from Iraq? I work with a physicist who
fled Iraq with his family years ago to escape. He, along with many other
Iraqis, want Saddam ousted from power, and a true democratic government
established. His regime is a regime of terror - not only threatening
Israel and the US, but also neighboring countries, and killing large
numbers of people within Iraq because of their ethnicity, religion, or
just to test some weapons.

If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been
saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in
Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there
is oil there?

The fact is, some people are just plain evil (malicious, egocentric, and
dangerous).

Personally, I don't think our first priority right now should be going
after Saddam. It should be securing the cold war era nukes and fissionable
material (that are relatively poorly guarded) in the countries of the
former Soviet Union, to try to prevent the MANY countries/organizations
that want to get their hands on it from doing so. We should help Russia
and the other countries build their economies, in exchange for letting us
glassify all the fissionable material that's just sitting around.

Mike
-
Michael S. Briggs   "Never judge a man until you've
UNH Physics Department  walked a mile in his shoes. Then
(603) 862-2828  when you do judge him, you'll be
a mile away and you'll have
his shoes."
---


>
> Keith
>
>
> >- Original Message -
> >From: kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:42 AM
> >Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set
> >up...NOT
> >
> >
> > > >15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So,
> >if it was 2
> > > >feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long),
> >then the
> > > >cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's
> >a cylinder,
> > > >the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of
> >4 cm (a
> > > >little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit
> >under a seat.
> > > >(sarcasm)
> > >
> > >
> > > You wouldn't be sarcastic for long with no shielding. You left
> >shielding out
> > > in your eagerness to stuff it under the seat.
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Michael S Briggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:37 PM
> > > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set
> >up...NOT
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > - Original Message -
> > > > From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15
> >kilos and 2 or
> > > > so
> > > > > feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample
> >increases
> > > > since
> > > > > U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or
> >just a
> > > reactor?
> > >
> > > You wouldn't make a bomb with it still in 15% concentration,
> >but there
> > > would be enough U-235 in there to make one (you just need to
> >separate it
> > > out, which can be done with those centrifuges Saddam recently
> >purchased).
>
> etc etc
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Keith Addison]

Todd wrote:

>Oh shit!!! Isn't this close to the same stuff that Bernard Cohen
>was willing to eat a gram of  in front of national media?

Didn't Reagan offer to store it under his desk in the Oval Office?

>What's your worry?
>
>Now please...and I do mean "PLEASE" tell me, after you've belched
>irradiated gaswhat the hell does this have to do with
>biofuels or their ability to displace "sub-vinyl," sub-cutaneous
>or any other placements of radioactive feedstocks?
>
>Or have I simply stumbled upon a subsidiary internet branch of
>the National Enquirer?
>
>George Schlicten(doom)

It's about oil, thus not strictly off-topic - though Iraq isn't a 
topic I expect a calm, objective debate on, no way there won't be 
flame wars. To throw the fat in the fire, so to speak - from another 
list today (posted by an American): "It [using WVO as fuel] also 
helps decrease the need for the US to attack other nations like Iraq 
so they can steal their oil."

Aneed any excuse will do, it seems. How does this something-or-other 
under a car seat compare with Kennedy's rather clearcut movies of 
Russian missiles headed for Cuba? (And war was averted that time.) 
Not quite as convincing, somehow, this and other "evidence" of Iraqi 
- or rather Saddamite (Satan personified) - WMDs.

Re Blair's "Iraq Dossier": "If he [Blair] wanted to prove that Saddam 
had nuclear weapons or was within an ace of getting and using them, 
or was planning to launch a chemical or biological assault on another 
country, he would have needed something more than this... What the 
document entirely fails to do - and possibly could never have done - 
is show that Saddam Hussein is a current threat, or what his future 
intentions are... And Mr Dalyell makes a powerful point when he says 
that Saddam must know that if he ever uses a nuclear device he would 
be instantly 'flattened.'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2277826.stm
Blair's case for the prosecution

Now what does all that remind me of? Weak. If there were a smoking 
gun we'd definitely know all about it beyond any doubt. Just oil. And 
politics. The two hopelessly confused as ever, when it comes to the 
US.

Keith


>----- Original Message -
>From: kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:42 AM
>Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set
>up...NOT
>
>
> > >15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So,
>if it was 2
> > >feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long),
>then the
> > >cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's
>a cylinder,
> > >the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of
>4 cm (a
> > >little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit
>under a seat.
> > >(sarcasm)
> >
> >
> > You wouldn't be sarcastic for long with no shielding. You left
>shielding out
> > in your eagerness to stuff it under the seat.
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael S Briggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:37 PM
> > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set
>up...NOT
> >
> >
> >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15
>kilos and 2 or
> > > so
> > > > feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample
>increases
> > > since
> > > > U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or
>just a
> > reactor?
> >
> > You wouldn't make a bomb with it still in 15% concentration,
>but there
> > would be enough U-235 in there to make one (you just need to
>separate it
> > out, which can be done with those centrifuges Saddam recently
>purchased).

etc etc


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Appal Energy]

Oh shit!!! Isn't this close to the same stuff that Bernard Cohen
was willing to eat a gram of  in front of national media?

What's your worry?

Now please...and I do mean "PLEASE" tell me, after you've belched
irradiated gaswhat the hell does this have to do with
biofuels or their ability to displace "sub-vinyl," sub-cutaneous
or any other placements of radioactive feedstocks?

Or have I simply stumbled upon a subsidiary internet branch of
the National Enquirer?

George Schlicten(doom)

- Original Message -
From: kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:42 AM
Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set
up...NOT


> >15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So,
if it was 2
> >feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long),
then the
> >cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's
a cylinder,
> >the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of
4 cm (a
> >little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit
under a seat.
> >(sarcasm)
>
>
> You wouldn't be sarcastic for long with no shielding. You left
shielding out
> in your eagerness to stuff it under the seat.
>
> Kirk
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael S Briggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:37 PM
> To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set
up...NOT
>
>
>
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15
kilos and 2 or
> > so
> > > feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample
increases
> > since
> > > U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or
just a
> reactor?
>
> You wouldn't make a bomb with it still in 15% concentration,
but there
> would be enough U-235 in there to make one (you just need to
separate it
> out, which can be done with those centrifuges Saddam recently
purchased).
>
> > > Since it fit under a car seat what is the max diameter?
Allow for
> Uranium
> > > load and you are left with a cylinder how thick? Halve that
for wall
> > > thickness.
> > > Also we saw it was free of mounting, just something stuffed
under a
> seat.
> > It
> > > supposedly contained 15kilos of uranium. How many kilos can
the Hulk
> slide
> > > under a seat? 100? so 85 kilos for lead in this case. How
big would that
> > be?
> > > Lead is about 11.4 grams per CC--uranium 19grams or so
dependent on
> > isotope
> > > ratio. What is the volume of 15 kilos of U? was long, not
spherical.
>
> 15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So, if
it was 2
> feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long), then
the
> cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's
a cylinder,
> the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of 4
cm (a
> little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit under
a seat.
> (sarcasm)
>
> > > What is total weight? You still believe?
>
> What, you ask some silly rhetorical questions, and that's
supposed to
> constitute evidence that it was a fabrication?
>
> > > The arrested person was a valuable member to their
movement. Not just
> any
> > > mule.
> > > A mad dog member perhaps but valuable to them. Do you put
assets on
> > suicide
> > > runs or would you use a mule?
>
> Why was it a suicide run?
>
> > > Nope. Nice story but. . .
> > >
> > > And what does "you would like that" mean? My vested
interest is the
> truth.
> > > Physics is the argument.
>
> I fail to see how the laws of physics give any indication that
the story
> isn't exactly what happened, or at least what could have
happened.
>
> Sure, it's mighty tempting to believe that everything the US
government
> does is malicious. But there are countries far worse, and even
though
> there are some ignorant and self-centered people in the US
government,
> ours is still far and away the best form of government around.
>
> > > > Would 15 Kilograms of weapons grade uranium be put on
show and be
> > > > photographed by journalists when the radiation from it
would not only
> be
> > > > deadly but would fog photographic films and cause
wonderful sparklies
> in
> > > > a
> > > > digital camera due to the radiation exiting the sensor
and corrupting
> > > > the
> > > > memory, CMOS devices in all modern equipment 

RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[kirk]

>15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So, if it was 2
>feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long), then the
>cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's a cylinder,
>the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of 4 cm (a
>little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit under a seat.
>(sarcasm)


You wouldn't be sarcastic for long with no shielding. You left shielding out
in your eagerness to stuff it under the seat.

Kirk





-Original Message-
From: Michael S Briggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:37 PM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT



> - Original Message -
> From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15 kilos and 2 or
> so
> > feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample increases
> since
> > U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or just a
reactor?

You wouldn't make a bomb with it still in 15% concentration, but there
would be enough U-235 in there to make one (you just need to separate it
out, which can be done with those centrifuges Saddam recently purchased).

> > Since it fit under a car seat what is the max diameter? Allow for
Uranium
> > load and you are left with a cylinder how thick? Halve that for wall
> > thickness.
> > Also we saw it was free of mounting, just something stuffed under a
seat.
> It
> > supposedly contained 15kilos of uranium. How many kilos can the Hulk
slide
> > under a seat? 100? so 85 kilos for lead in this case. How big would that
> be?
> > Lead is about 11.4 grams per CC--uranium 19grams or so dependent on
> isotope
> > ratio. What is the volume of 15 kilos of U? was long, not spherical.

15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So, if it was 2
feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long), then the
cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's a cylinder,
the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of 4 cm (a
little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit under a seat.
(sarcasm)

> > What is total weight? You still believe?

What, you ask some silly rhetorical questions, and that's supposed to
constitute evidence that it was a fabrication?

> > The arrested person was a valuable member to their movement. Not just
any
> > mule.
> > A mad dog member perhaps but valuable to them. Do you put assets on
> suicide
> > runs or would you use a mule?

Why was it a suicide run?

> > Nope. Nice story but. . .
> >
> > And what does "you would like that" mean? My vested interest is the
truth.
> > Physics is the argument.

I fail to see how the laws of physics give any indication that the story
isn't exactly what happened, or at least what could have happened.

Sure, it's mighty tempting to believe that everything the US government
does is malicious. But there are countries far worse, and even though
there are some ignorant and self-centered people in the US government,
ours is still far and away the best form of government around.

> > > Would 15 Kilograms of weapons grade uranium be put on show and be
> > > photographed by journalists when the radiation from it would not only
be
> > > deadly but would fog photographic films and cause wonderful sparklies
in
> > > a
> > > digital camera due to the radiation exiting the sensor and corrupting
> > > the
> > > memory, CMOS devices in all modern equipment are very susceptible to
> > > radiation!

The radiation from it would NOT be deadly, and would NOT significantly fog
photographic film in the short amount of time it would be exposed to a
relatively small x-ray source, at the distance photographers would be
allowed to take photos from. Sure, if you brought the film very close it
would expose it relatively quickly, but how likely is it that media
personnel would be allowed to get close enough to it to snatch it?
(yes, x-rays can travel a ways, but they would be travelling outwards in 4
pi radians (every which way), so the further away you are, the lower the
density of x-rays, and considering it's a fairly small x-ray source to
begin with).

> > > Why not ask an expert what would happen to anybody who was close to
that
> > > much enriched uranium!"

Why didn't whoever wrote this ask an expert? Perhaps he knows a bit about
nuclear physics, but if he does, it's clearly being clouded by an
over-eagerness to believe that the US government lies about everything,
and that everyone else in the world is friendly and would rather snuggle
with kittens than kill the US in

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Appal Energy]

Kirk,

I still expect reasonable explanation as to your conveyance to
Mr. George Reisman that my divergence of opinions with Mr. Falk
were somehow a critique of his.

Please refer to the thread "Re: [biofuel] FW: The Great
Power-Shortage Myth "

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:14 AM
Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set
up...NOT


> Do the math. Discovery is better than me saying one thing or
another.
> BTW
> I was a radiation hardness and susceptibility engineer when I
still worked
> in the business.
> Shielding was what I had to determine among other things.
Anyone who buys a
> 15kilo story under a car seat is a babe in the woods.
>
> Kirk
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bryan Fullerton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 3:58 PM
> To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set
up...NOT
>
>
> And you dont think the government has experts in physics?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 9:27 AM
> Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set
up...NOT
>
>
> > OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15
kilos and 2 or
> so
> > feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample
increases
> since
> > U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or
just a reactor?
> > Since it fit under a car seat what is the max diameter? Allow
for Uranium
> > load and you are left with a cylinder how thick? Halve that
for wall
> > thickness.
> > Also we saw it was free of mounting, just something stuffed
under a seat.
> It
> > supposedly contained 15kilos of uranium. How many kilos can
the Hulk slide
> > under a seat? 100? so 85 kilos for lead in this case. How big
would that
> be?
> > Lead is about 11.4 grams per CC--uranium 19grams or so
dependent on
> isotope
> > ratio. What is the volume of 15 kilos of U? was long, not
spherical.
> > What is total weight? You still believe?
> >
> >
> > The arrested person was a valuable member to their movement.
Not just any
> > mule.
> > A mad dog member perhaps but valuable to them. Do you put
assets on
> suicide
> > runs or would you use a mule?
> >
> > Nope. Nice story but. . .
> >
> > And what does "you would like that" mean? My vested interest
is the truth.
> > Physics is the argument.
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bryan Fullerton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 3:47 AM
> > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set
up...NOT
> >
> >
> > Oh you would like that wouldn't you. Problem is you failed to
completly
> read
> > the article. I read it on msn.com hm or was it yahoo.. anyway
it was in a
> > lead container hidden under the seat of a taxi.
> > If the government was going to pull something like that they
would not be
> so
> > stupid. The CIA has experts that know how that stuff works
alot better
> then
> > you or me I would wager. Besides we know government well
enough to know
> that
> > if they were involved they would most likly stage it as a
demonstration
> and
> > set it up like the "bad" guys didnt know how to handle it by
haveing it
> leak
> > and kill a bunch of "bad" guys and or innocents.
> >
> > Now if you had said that the cab driver was a member of
biofuels group and
> > was working on a way to power his vehicle with enriched
uranium then I
> might
> > have believed. LOL
> >
> > Besides there is already enough evidence in just his
character profile to
> > know that he is trying to do it. This guy likes to kill
people and
> > preferably not one or two at a time. His idea of an afternoon
of fun is to
> > kill a whole family at least. maybe even part of his own. No
evidence of
> any
> > guilt or a real reason necessary.
> >
> > Read the human rights reports that have come out of that
area. statements
> > from the few people who have escaped over the last 12 years
or so. Not a
> guy
> > I would want to even know.
> >
> >
> > Bryan
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Marc de Piolenc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Biofuel List" 
> > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 1:42 AM
> > Subject: [biofuel] The BBC has been 

RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[kirk]

Do the math. Discovery is better than me saying one thing or another.
BTW
I was a radiation hardness and susceptibility engineer when I still worked
in the business.
Shielding was what I had to determine among other things. Anyone who buys a
15kilo story under a car seat is a babe in the woods.

Kirk

-Original Message-
From: Bryan Fullerton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 3:58 PM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT


And you dont think the government has experts in physics?

- Original Message -
From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 9:27 AM
Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT


> OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15 kilos and 2 or
so
> feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample increases
since
> U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or just a reactor?
> Since it fit under a car seat what is the max diameter? Allow for Uranium
> load and you are left with a cylinder how thick? Halve that for wall
> thickness.
> Also we saw it was free of mounting, just something stuffed under a seat.
It
> supposedly contained 15kilos of uranium. How many kilos can the Hulk slide
> under a seat? 100? so 85 kilos for lead in this case. How big would that
be?
> Lead is about 11.4 grams per CC--uranium 19grams or so dependent on
isotope
> ratio. What is the volume of 15 kilos of U? was long, not spherical.
> What is total weight? You still believe?
>
>
> The arrested person was a valuable member to their movement. Not just any
> mule.
> A mad dog member perhaps but valuable to them. Do you put assets on
suicide
> runs or would you use a mule?
>
> Nope. Nice story but. . .
>
> And what does "you would like that" mean? My vested interest is the truth.
> Physics is the argument.
>
> Kirk
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bryan Fullerton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 3:47 AM
> To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
>
>
> Oh you would like that wouldn't you. Problem is you failed to completly
read
> the article. I read it on msn.com hm or was it yahoo.. anyway it was in a
> lead container hidden under the seat of a taxi.
> If the government was going to pull something like that they would not be
so
> stupid. The CIA has experts that know how that stuff works alot better
then
> you or me I would wager. Besides we know government well enough to know
that
> if they were involved they would most likly stage it as a demonstration
and
> set it up like the "bad" guys didnt know how to handle it by haveing it
leak
> and kill a bunch of "bad" guys and or innocents.
>
> Now if you had said that the cab driver was a member of biofuels group and
> was working on a way to power his vehicle with enriched uranium then I
might
> have believed. LOL
>
> Besides there is already enough evidence in just his character profile to
> know that he is trying to do it. This guy likes to kill people and
> preferably not one or two at a time. His idea of an afternoon of fun is to
> kill a whole family at least. maybe even part of his own. No evidence of
any
> guilt or a real reason necessary.
>
> Read the human rights reports that have come out of that area. statements
> from the few people who have escaped over the last 12 years or so. Not a
guy
> I would want to even know.
>
>
> Bryan
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Marc de Piolenc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Biofuel List" 
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 1:42 AM
> Subject: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
>
>
> > The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up
> >
> >
> > "I have just posted this on your forum, BBC Talking Point and  I doubt
> > whether it will be printed as it would be an embarrassment;
> > Was the "Enriched uranium" found in Turkey real or was it a part of a
> > ploy
> > to lend credence to claims that Iraq is building an atomic bomb?
> > Would 15 Kilograms of weapons grade uranium be put on show and be
> > photographed by journalists when the radiation from it would not only be
> > deadly but would fog photographic films and cause wonderful sparklies in
> > a
> > digital camera due to the radiation exiting the sensor and corrupting
> > the
> > memory, CMOS devices in all modern equipment are very susceptible to
> > radiation!
> > Why not ask an expert what would happen to anybody who was close to that
> > much enrich

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Michael S Briggs]

> - Original Message -
> From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15 kilos and 2 or
> so
> > feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample increases
> since
> > U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or just a reactor?

You wouldn't make a bomb with it still in 15% concentration, but there
would be enough U-235 in there to make one (you just need to separate it
out, which can be done with those centrifuges Saddam recently purchased).

> > Since it fit under a car seat what is the max diameter? Allow for Uranium
> > load and you are left with a cylinder how thick? Halve that for wall
> > thickness.
> > Also we saw it was free of mounting, just something stuffed under a seat.
> It
> > supposedly contained 15kilos of uranium. How many kilos can the Hulk slide
> > under a seat? 100? so 85 kilos for lead in this case. How big would that
> be?
> > Lead is about 11.4 grams per CC--uranium 19grams or so dependent on
> isotope
> > ratio. What is the volume of 15 kilos of U? was long, not spherical.

15,000 grams, so that's 15,000/19=790 cubic centimeters. So, if it was 2
feet long (24 inches, at 2.54 cm per inch, so 61 cm long), then the
cross-sectional area must be 790/61=13 cm^2. So, assuming it's a cylinder,
the radius would be slightly more than 2 cm, or a diameter of 4 cm (a
little over 1.5 inches). Yeah, that would be tough to fit under a seat.
(sarcasm)

> > What is total weight? You still believe?

What, you ask some silly rhetorical questions, and that's supposed to
constitute evidence that it was a fabrication?

> > The arrested person was a valuable member to their movement. Not just any
> > mule.
> > A mad dog member perhaps but valuable to them. Do you put assets on
> suicide
> > runs or would you use a mule?

Why was it a suicide run?

> > Nope. Nice story but. . .
> >
> > And what does "you would like that" mean? My vested interest is the truth.
> > Physics is the argument.

I fail to see how the laws of physics give any indication that the story
isn't exactly what happened, or at least what could have happened.

Sure, it's mighty tempting to believe that everything the US government
does is malicious. But there are countries far worse, and even though
there are some ignorant and self-centered people in the US government,
ours is still far and away the best form of government around.

> > > Would 15 Kilograms of weapons grade uranium be put on show and be
> > > photographed by journalists when the radiation from it would not only be
> > > deadly but would fog photographic films and cause wonderful sparklies in
> > > a
> > > digital camera due to the radiation exiting the sensor and corrupting
> > > the
> > > memory, CMOS devices in all modern equipment are very susceptible to
> > > radiation!

The radiation from it would NOT be deadly, and would NOT significantly fog
photographic film in the short amount of time it would be exposed to a
relatively small x-ray source, at the distance photographers would be
allowed to take photos from. Sure, if you brought the film very close it
would expose it relatively quickly, but how likely is it that media
personnel would be allowed to get close enough to it to snatch it?
(yes, x-rays can travel a ways, but they would be travelling outwards in 4
pi radians (every which way), so the further away you are, the lower the
density of x-rays, and considering it's a fairly small x-ray source to
begin with).

> > > Why not ask an expert what would happen to anybody who was close to that
> > > much enriched uranium!"

Why didn't whoever wrote this ask an expert? Perhaps he knows a bit about
nuclear physics, but if he does, it's clearly being clouded by an
over-eagerness to believe that the US government lies about everything,
and that everyone else in the world is friendly and would rather snuggle
with kittens than kill the US infidels and find their way to heaven as a
martyr?

> > > Fissionables are not highly radioactive (nuclear reactors would not be
> > > controllable if they were), and it is perfectly possible and safe to
> > > stand at a reasonable distance from highly enriched uranium. Spontaneous
> > > radioactivity is stronger in a lump of plutonium because of inevitable
> > > contamination by a radioactive isotope of that metal, but even that
> > > would be tolerable at a distance of a few meters.

Exactly.

Mike


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Bryan Fullerton]

And you dont think the government has experts in physics?

- Original Message -
From: "kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 9:27 AM
Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT


> OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15 kilos and 2 or
so
> feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample increases
since
> U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or just a reactor?
> Since it fit under a car seat what is the max diameter? Allow for Uranium
> load and you are left with a cylinder how thick? Halve that for wall
> thickness.
> Also we saw it was free of mounting, just something stuffed under a seat.
It
> supposedly contained 15kilos of uranium. How many kilos can the Hulk slide
> under a seat? 100? so 85 kilos for lead in this case. How big would that
be?
> Lead is about 11.4 grams per CC--uranium 19grams or so dependent on
isotope
> ratio. What is the volume of 15 kilos of U? was long, not spherical.
> What is total weight? You still believe?
>
>
> The arrested person was a valuable member to their movement. Not just any
> mule.
> A mad dog member perhaps but valuable to them. Do you put assets on
suicide
> runs or would you use a mule?
>
> Nope. Nice story but. . .
>
> And what does "you would like that" mean? My vested interest is the truth.
> Physics is the argument.
>
> Kirk
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bryan Fullerton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 3:47 AM
> To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
>
>
> Oh you would like that wouldn't you. Problem is you failed to completly
read
> the article. I read it on msn.com hm or was it yahoo.. anyway it was in a
> lead container hidden under the seat of a taxi.
> If the government was going to pull something like that they would not be
so
> stupid. The CIA has experts that know how that stuff works alot better
then
> you or me I would wager. Besides we know government well enough to know
that
> if they were involved they would most likly stage it as a demonstration
and
> set it up like the "bad" guys didnt know how to handle it by haveing it
leak
> and kill a bunch of "bad" guys and or innocents.
>
> Now if you had said that the cab driver was a member of biofuels group and
> was working on a way to power his vehicle with enriched uranium then I
might
> have believed. LOL
>
> Besides there is already enough evidence in just his character profile to
> know that he is trying to do it. This guy likes to kill people and
> preferably not one or two at a time. His idea of an afternoon of fun is to
> kill a whole family at least. maybe even part of his own. No evidence of
any
> guilt or a real reason necessary.
>
> Read the human rights reports that have come out of that area. statements
> from the few people who have escaped over the last 12 years or so. Not a
guy
> I would want to even know.
>
>
> Bryan
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Marc de Piolenc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Biofuel List" 
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 1:42 AM
> Subject: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
>
>
> > The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up
> >
> >
> > "I have just posted this on your forum, BBC Talking Point and  I doubt
> > whether it will be printed as it would be an embarrassment;
> > Was the "Enriched uranium" found in Turkey real or was it a part of a
> > ploy
> > to lend credence to claims that Iraq is building an atomic bomb?
> > Would 15 Kilograms of weapons grade uranium be put on show and be
> > photographed by journalists when the radiation from it would not only be
> > deadly but would fog photographic films and cause wonderful sparklies in
> > a
> > digital camera due to the radiation exiting the sensor and corrupting
> > the
> > memory, CMOS devices in all modern equipment are very susceptible to
> > radiation!
> > Why not ask an expert what would happen to anybody who was close to that
> > much enriched uranium!"
> >
> > Fissionables are not highly radioactive (nuclear reactors would not be
> > controllable if they were), and it is perfectly possible and safe to
> > stand at a reasonable distance from highly enriched uranium. Spontaneous
> > radioactivity is stronger in a lump of plutonium because of inevitable
> > contamination by a radioactive isotope of that metal, but even that
> > would be tolerable at a distance of a few meters.
> >
> > Of

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[rmcphe8888]

Kirk: I started as a nuclear engineer on US Navy Submarines in 1963.  I have 
been involved in the nuclear business every since.  Along the way I 
represented the US on a six nation board that grew out of the Chernobyl 
accident.  Don't be swayed by people writing about the quality, quantity or 
enrichment of any fissionable material that gets picked up on the black 
market.  It's all usable in making weapons.  The seizure in Turkey was just 
an indicator of how much is moving around.  When you have as much oil money 
as Iraq does and its kept from the people of Iraq to be used by one person in 
his quest for weapons of mass destruction there are people around the world 
that will sell him what he wants. The have for over 10 years and will 
continue. Richard   



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[kirk]

OK, so what is the gamma fluence from a 15%U235 pencil 15 kilos and 2 or so
feet long? Remember effective half life decreases as sample increases since
U235 is neutron sensitive. Is 15% hot enough for a bomb or just a reactor?
Since it fit under a car seat what is the max diameter? Allow for Uranium
load and you are left with a cylinder how thick? Halve that for wall
thickness.
Also we saw it was free of mounting, just something stuffed under a seat. It
supposedly contained 15kilos of uranium. How many kilos can the Hulk slide
under a seat? 100? so 85 kilos for lead in this case. How big would that be?
Lead is about 11.4 grams per CC--uranium 19grams or so dependent on isotope
ratio. What is the volume of 15 kilos of U? was long, not spherical.
What is total weight? You still believe?


The arrested person was a valuable member to their movement. Not just any
mule.
A mad dog member perhaps but valuable to them. Do you put assets on suicide
runs or would you use a mule?

Nope. Nice story but. . .

And what does "you would like that" mean? My vested interest is the truth.
Physics is the argument.

Kirk




-Original Message-
From: Bryan Fullerton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 3:47 AM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT


Oh you would like that wouldn't you. Problem is you failed to completly read
the article. I read it on msn.com hm or was it yahoo.. anyway it was in a
lead container hidden under the seat of a taxi.
If the government was going to pull something like that they would not be so
stupid. The CIA has experts that know how that stuff works alot better then
you or me I would wager. Besides we know government well enough to know that
if they were involved they would most likly stage it as a demonstration and
set it up like the "bad" guys didnt know how to handle it by haveing it leak
and kill a bunch of "bad" guys and or innocents.

Now if you had said that the cab driver was a member of biofuels group and
was working on a way to power his vehicle with enriched uranium then I might
have believed. LOL

Besides there is already enough evidence in just his character profile to
know that he is trying to do it. This guy likes to kill people and
preferably not one or two at a time. His idea of an afternoon of fun is to
kill a whole family at least. maybe even part of his own. No evidence of any
guilt or a real reason necessary.

Read the human rights reports that have come out of that area. statements
from the few people who have escaped over the last 12 years or so. Not a guy
I would want to even know.


Bryan



- Original Message -
From: "Marc de Piolenc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Biofuel List" 
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 1:42 AM
Subject: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT


> The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up
>
>
> "I have just posted this on your forum, BBC Talking Point and  I doubt
> whether it will be printed as it would be an embarrassment;
> Was the "Enriched uranium" found in Turkey real or was it a part of a
> ploy
> to lend credence to claims that Iraq is building an atomic bomb?
> Would 15 Kilograms of weapons grade uranium be put on show and be
> photographed by journalists when the radiation from it would not only be
> deadly but would fog photographic films and cause wonderful sparklies in
> a
> digital camera due to the radiation exiting the sensor and corrupting
> the
> memory, CMOS devices in all modern equipment are very susceptible to
> radiation!
> Why not ask an expert what would happen to anybody who was close to that
> much enriched uranium!"
>
> Fissionables are not highly radioactive (nuclear reactors would not be
> controllable if they were), and it is perfectly possible and safe to
> stand at a reasonable distance from highly enriched uranium. Spontaneous
> radioactivity is stronger in a lump of plutonium because of inevitable
> contamination by a radioactive isotope of that metal, but even that
> would be tolerable at a distance of a few meters.
>
> Of course, the whole show could still be a setup, but the fact that
> journalists were able to take pictures without getting radiation
> sickness proves nothing.




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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 9/19/2002


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Plan to Se

Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT

[Bryan Fullerton]

Oh you would like that wouldn't you. Problem is you failed to completly read
the article. I read it on msn.com hm or was it yahoo.. anyway it was in a
lead container hidden under the seat of a taxi.
If the government was going to pull something like that they would not be so
stupid. The CIA has experts that know how that stuff works alot better then
you or me I would wager. Besides we know government well enough to know that
if they were involved they would most likly stage it as a demonstration and
set it up like the "bad" guys didnt know how to handle it by haveing it leak
and kill a bunch of "bad" guys and or innocents.

Now if you had said that the cab driver was a member of biofuels group and
was working on a way to power his vehicle with enriched uranium then I might
have believed. LOL

Besides there is already enough evidence in just his character profile to
know that he is trying to do it. This guy likes to kill people and
preferably not one or two at a time. His idea of an afternoon of fun is to
kill a whole family at least. maybe even part of his own. No evidence of any
guilt or a real reason necessary.

Read the human rights reports that have come out of that area. statements
from the few people who have escaped over the last 12 years or so. Not a guy
I would want to even know.


Bryan



- Original Message -
From: "Marc de Piolenc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Biofuel List" 
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 1:42 AM
Subject: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT


> The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up
>
>
> "I have just posted this on your forum, BBC Talking Point and  I doubt
> whether it will be printed as it would be an embarrassment;
> Was the "Enriched uranium" found in Turkey real or was it a part of a
> ploy
> to lend credence to claims that Iraq is building an atomic bomb?
> Would 15 Kilograms of weapons grade uranium be put on show and be
> photographed by journalists when the radiation from it would not only be
> deadly but would fog photographic films and cause wonderful sparklies in
> a
> digital camera due to the radiation exiting the sensor and corrupting
> the
> memory, CMOS devices in all modern equipment are very susceptible to
> radiation!
> Why not ask an expert what would happen to anybody who was close to that
> much enriched uranium!"
>
> Fissionables are not highly radioactive (nuclear reactors would not be
> controllable if they were), and it is perfectly possible and safe to
> stand at a reasonable distance from highly enriched uranium. Spontaneous
> radioactivity is stronger in a lump of plutonium because of inevitable
> contamination by a radioactive isotope of that metal, but even that
> would be tolerable at a distance of a few meters.
>
> Of course, the whole show could still be a setup, but the fact that
> journalists were able to take pictures without getting radiation
> sickness proves nothing.



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/