is there anyone that is converting waste veggie oil into biodiesel in nc charlotte area? I would be interested in buying some or helping start a company that does this.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 10:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Biofuel Digest, Vol 2, Issue 133 Send Biofuel mailing list submissions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Biofuel digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec (bob allen) 2. Re: C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec (Keith Addison) 3. Oil Demands Can Be Met, but at a High Price, Energy Agency Says (Keith Addison) 4. Re: C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec (John Hayes) 5. Re: Oil Demands Can Be Met, but at a High Price, Energy Agency Says (Hakan Falk) 6. Re: C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec (Keith Addison) 7. Re: Fwd: Information on Sawdust processing (Keith Addison) 8. The Future of Alternative Energy (Keith Addison) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:53:58 -0500 From: bob allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Appal Energy wrote: > Bob, > > I'm at a bit of a loss with this one. Don't suppose you would care to > qualify your opinion with something more than "quack, quack" would > you? As I recall the last time I visited the aspartame issue > (researched it for several weeks, up one side and down the other) the > problems and concerns were very real. Aspartame hasn't changed. Human > biology hasn't changed. Neither human biology nor the scientific standards of proof. Let me say first that I don't use aspertame, don't promote its use, or even think it has value in our society, oh and I don't hold any stock in or have any connection with the product. That having been said, the facts are simple . there is no scientific evidence which shows harm in the normal use of this product, with the single exception of infants diagnosed with PKU. Asking me to prove it does no harm is well nigh impossible. (the old proving a negative problem) Todd, you said you investigated the issue. What are your findings. Shouldn't the onus be on evidence of harm? What did you find, beyond testimonials and feeble speculation? Animal studies, well controlled laboratory results, Double blind trials? Where is the evidence? And I don't mean things like "aspertame contains methanol, methanol is poisonous, therefore Aspertame is poisonous". Or "the body is not used to amino acids". I have seen these arguments way too many times. Give me studies in per reviewed journals, and I will give a look see and let you know of my conclusions. > > We both know that just because something has found its way onto the > shelf and been assigned a status of "below regulatory concern" by a > very biased institutional process that doesn't somehow make reality > disappear. > > Something a little more "concrete" from someone other than Donald > Rumsfeld would serve well at the moment. Ok how about this, Some 50 plus million people here in US use it daily, why hasn't epidemiological evidence turned up harm? I was a graduate student many years back. I mention this only to point out that proving that conventional wisdom is wrong is sort of a holy grail to science researchers across the universe. If there is data to disprove the conventional wisdom that aspertame is safe as used, then why hasn't a graduate student in epidemiology found anything? > > Todd Swearingen > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "bob allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:08 AM > Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec > > >> Nothing personal to you but all I can say about Mercola is QUACK, >> QUACK. see for example his totally bogus, nonscientific diatribe >> about aspertame. It is right up there with other wackos such as >> Betty Martini. >> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7469/755#76712 >> >> >> Legal Eagle wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the links. Dr Marcola is a known specialist in his >>> field, so this should prove an interesting read. >>> Luc >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Volker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:18 AM >>> Subject: RE: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec >>> >>> >>>> Probiotics are something I researched heavily about 6 months ago, >>>> when I >>>> began using what I have found to be by far the best available. Here >>>> is one >>>> link which explains the product well in summary form, and there are >>>> many >>>> sites which explain the homeostatic soil organism concept at extreme >>>> detail..The probiotic I am referring to is called Primal Defense, >>>> made by >>>> "Garden of Life"...visit http://www.risingstarlc.com/pdindex.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> Also, regarding flu epidemics, shortages of vaccines, and the >>>> foolishness of >>>> using vaccines period, visit >>>> http://www.mercola.com/2004/oct/20/flu_vaccine.htm >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Dan Volker >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Legal Eagle >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:13 AM >>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec >>>>> >>>>> Muchas Gracias Kim; >>>>> >>>>> After having a peruse I may even want to give it a link in >>>>> the Oragnics Section of my site or something. We all need to >>>>> seek out ways to better our health. No one is going to avoid >>>>> dying, but we sure can have a good and long quality of life though. >>>>> Luc >>>>> PS:Maybe I should be thinking of adding a section only for >>>>> probiotics. I already have an article on it, but sources I do >>>>> not have.Hmmm, worth a thought. >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Kim & Garth Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:08 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > Wonderful advice Luc. I would add that kefir taken daily really >>>>> > promotes good health. Kefir grains really are Mother Nature's best >>>>> > defence for health. The nice part, is that one aquires >>>>> grains just by >>>>> > paying the shipping, then in a couple of weeks, you have lots of >>>>> > grains to share with family and friends. Learn more at: >>>>> > http://users.chariot.net.au/~dna/kefirpage.html >>>>> > >>>>> > Bright Blessings, >>>>> > Kim >>>>> > >>>>> > At 07:52 AM 10/27/2004, you wrote: >>>>> >>http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/10/26/cdiffici >>>>> le_queplan >>>>> >>041026.html >>>>> >> >>>>> >>Check out what they are doing to curb it. Reducing >>>>> anti-biotics, duh. >>>>> >>Anti-biotics overuse has resulted in many more diseases >>>>> than they have >>>>> >>"cured". All the while attacking "bad" bacteria they also >>>>> eliminate "good" >>>>> >>bacteria leaving the immune system depleted of it's >>>>> defenses and then >>>>> >>along comes Mr. Pathogen (just like in tress) and wreaks a >>>>> nightmare, >>>>> >>and because these pathogen are so prolific it isn't long >>>>> before what >>>>> >>was a minor problem becomes a major health concern, just >>>>> like over use >>>>> >>of fertilizers in soil. Same causation, same effect. >>>>> >>When T cells are healthy the immuno functions, including the lymph, >>>>> >>cleans out and purify the blood and move dead cells and other >>>>> >>pathogens along to be disposed of, but if the immuno functions are >>>>> >>weakened by anti-biotic overkill then the lymph can't do >>>>> it's job properly and you get ... sick. >>>>> >>When anti-biotics MUST be used it is recommended that a >>>>> probiotic such >>>>> >>as acidophilus accompany it to offset some of the negative >>>>> effects of >>>>> >>the immuno depletion Of course there are exemptions, as in >>>>> all rules, >>>>> >>but this is the standard, now starting to be admitted by the >>>>> >>"community" of those heralding themselves as "health >>>>> experts". HRT was >>>>> >>a really good earner, I mean solution, until they were >>>>> forced to admit >>>>> >>it is a carcinogen. Vioxx was a really good earner, oops, I mean >>>>> >>solution until people started killing themselves. Lipitor >>>>> wa a really >>>>> >>good... unti it also proveed to be counter-health producting. >>>>> >>Moral of the story ? Live a healthy life and feed your body >>>>> with high >>>>> >>quality healthy fresh foods and you won't have to worry >>>>> about finding >>>>> >>a "solution" later. >>>>> >> >>>>> >>Luc >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > Biofuel mailing list >>>>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> > http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel >>>>> > >>>>> > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>>>> > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >>>>> > >>>>> > Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): >>>>> > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Biofuel mailing list >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel >>>>> >>>>> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>>>> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >>>>> >>>>> Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): >>>>> http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Biofuel mailing list >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel >>>> >>>> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>>> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >>>> >>>> Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): >>>> http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Biofuel mailing list >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel >>> >>> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >>> >>> Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): >>> http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ >>> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Bob /ozarker.org/bob >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> The modern conservative is engaged in one of Man's oldest exercises >> in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral >> justification for selfishness >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Biofuel mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel >> >> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >> >> Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): >> http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ >> > > _______________________________________________ > Biofuel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bob Allen,http://ozarker.org/bob ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- The modern conservative is engaged in one of Man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness JKG -------------------------------------------------------------------- --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:09:12 +0900 From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=603&bulletin_ID=48 #520 - Brain Cancer Update >So what you are saying John, and I'll let Bob speak for himself, is >that you are absolutely sure and willing to guarantee beyond all >shadow of doubt to anyone and everyone on the face of the planet >that there are no ramifications to be had from consumption of >aspartame? Not by anyone? Of any physiological disposition? At any >level? Not during any periods of gestation? Not in conjunction with >any other supplements, drugs or dietary predilections? > >To follow up on that thought, are you willing to bet your life on it >as well? After all, you are essentially betting the lives of others >on the premise of your opinion/belief and any recommendation >derived therefrom. > >Todd Swearingen > >----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:54 PM >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec > > >>Bob and I aren't the only ones that think aspartame is safe. >> >>American Dietetic Association. Position of the American Dietetic >>Association: use of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners. J Am >>Diet Assoc. 2004 Feb;104(2):255-75. >> >>Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food: Update on the Safety >>of Aspartamem. SCF/CS/ADD/EDUL/222 Final. Brusssels Dec 2002. >>http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/aspartameopinion.pdf >> >>Butchko HH et al. Aspartame: Review of safety. Regul Toxicol >>Pharmacol. 2002;35:S1-S93. >> >> >> >>Appal Energy wrote: >>>Bob, >>> >>>I'm at a bit of a loss with this one. Don't suppose you would care >>>to qualify your opinion with something more than "quack, quack" >>>would you? As I recall the last time I visited the aspartame issue >>>(researched it for several weeks, up one side and down the other) >>>the problems and concerns were very real. Aspartame hasn't >>>changed. Human biology hasn't changed. >>> >>>We both know that just because something has found its way onto >>>the shelf and been assigned a status of "below regulatory concern" >>>by a very biased institutional process that doesn't somehow make >>>reality disappear. >>> >>>Something a little more "concrete" from someone other than Donald >>>Rumsfeld would serve well at the moment. >>> >>>Todd Swearingen >>> >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- From: "bob allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:08 AM >>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec >>> >>> >>>>Nothing personal to you but all I can say about Mercola is >>>>QUACK, QUACK. see for example his totally bogus, nonscientific >>>>diatribe about aspertame. It is right up there with other wackos >>>>such as Betty Martini. >>>>http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7469/755#76712 >>>> <snip> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:09:18 +0900 From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Biofuel] Oil Demands Can Be Met, but at a High Price, Energy Agency Says To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/business/28oil.html?oref=login The New York Times > Business > Oil Demands Can Be Met, but at a High Price, Energy Agency Says By JAD MOUAWAD Published: October 28, 2004 LONDON, Oct. 27 - As record high prices raise concerns about future supplies of oil, the International Energy Agency, in a new report, stressed the need for oil-producing countries and international oil companies to increase their investments in finding and pumping oil. In its report, released Tuesday, the agency says there are sufficient oil reserves to meet demand for at least the next 30 years. But it says that not only will oil companies have to increase their spending, but oil-producing countries must also allow more outside access to their reserves. The report predicts that world oil demand will grow about 50 percent, to 121 million barrels a day, by 2030. To meet that growth, the industry will have to spend about $105 billion each year "from the wellhead to the consumer," according to the agency, which is an adviser to oil-consuming nations. The agency has been criticized for failing to forecast growth in demand in China this year. But its director, Claude Mandil, said that the agency's predictions should improve now that China has agreed to share its data on production and consumption. In its annual world energy outlook report, the agency warned of a drop in oil production and shortfalls in supplies if oil companies and oil-producing countries do not make huge investments, totaling $3 trillion over the next three decades, in everything from developing new fields to building more tankers, pipelines and refineries. "The availability of oil in terms of reserves and geology isn't an issue, but the problem is whether the oil can find the money," Fatih Birol, the agency's chief economist and the principal author of the report, said in an interview. "Will that strategic meeting take place?" The answer will provide an indication about whether world economies should get used to higher oil prices. Oil prices have gained nearly 70 percent this year, a jump of more than $20 a barrel, as markets were jolted by the war in Iraq, unforeseen growth in China and political uncertainty in oil-producing countries like Russia, Venezuela and Nigeria. But the underlying problem is that oil production worldwide is not staying ahead of the growth in demand. As a result, the world is left with little spare capacity to shield against sudden interruptions in supplies. Oil prices closed at $52.46 a barrel on Wednesday on the New York Mercantile Exchange, down from $55.17 a barrel on Tuesday. The energy agency's warning highlights concerns in the oil industry about future access to oil reserves, the decline in production from some regions and the volatility in oil prices. The message was echoed on Tuesday at an industry gathering in London sponsored by the publications Energy Intelligence and The International Herald Tribune. "If you want lower oil prices, you need more production relative to demand," Jeroen van der Veer, the chairman of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, said at the conference. "Lots of investments are needed." In the last decade, even as finding new oil was getting harder, oil companies have cut their investments in new exploration after a string of mergers led them to focus on cost-cutting and higher returns to shareholders. As a result, the world is now producing more oil than it is finding. Today, most oil producers are pumping at full capacity in an effort to bring prices down. OPEC members, which account for half the world's exports, are producing about 30 million barrels a day, a 25-year high and way above the group's official quota. The energy agency estimates that oil demand will grow by an average 1.6 percent a year to reach 121 million barrels a day in 2030. This year, demand is expected to grow 3.4 percent over last year, to 82.4 million barrels a day. The energy agency said oil-producing countries in the Middle East should allow foreign investment in the production of oil. While the world is not running out of oil, the problem is that international oil companies do not have access to countries holding the most reserves, Mr. Mandil said. "We need significant contribution from the Middle East," said Mr. Birol, the agency's chief economist. "If it doesn't come, we're in trouble." Some countries, like Saudi Arabia, do not allow foreign investments in their oil industries while others, like Kuwait, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, restrict foreign involvement. These four countries, along with Iraq, control about 60 percent of the world's oil reserves and all are members of OPEC. As production from other regions declines, OPEC will increasingly be called on to fill the gap. By 2015, the group's market share is expected to be around 50 percent, up from about 35 percent currently. Still, some OPEC countries play down the calls for them to grant more access to Western oil companies, pointing to their past track record in supplying oil when it was needed. Saudi Arabia is increasing its investments to raise its capacity by 1 million barrels a day by next year, to reach 11.5 million barrels a day. The agency's annual report, which provides an overview of the energy outlook for the next 30 years, also discussed the need to compile better information on oil production, consumption and reserves. In January, the agency said it expected world demand to reach 79.6 million barrels this year. That is 2.8 million barrels a day less than its current estimate, with China accounting for some of the difference. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:30:06 -0400 From: John Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed No Todd, I can't give 100% guarantees. No such thing in science. But I can say the following: a) Much pseudoscience, most of it well meaning, has been written about the evils of high intensity sweeteners. b) Known issues with PKU aside, evidence based science does not support these broad claims. c) While I don't doubt feelings of wellness improve in some individuals after eliminating aspartame from the diet, such self reports suffer from confirmation bias, and more importantly, are confounded with other dietary changes. This makes any putative causal link suspect. d) By implying that any adverse possible reactions, at any level of consumtion, or with any specific medical condition, means we should outlaw aspartame use, you are holding aspartame to a standard to which we don't hold other food additives. Salt is a perfect example: high doses of salt will kill anyone, and even moderate levels of salt should be avoided in individuals with high blood pressure. This doesn't mean salt use should be proscribed by everyone. e) I use products containing aspartame without hesitation and I would encourage aspartame use by my family members without hesitation. Does this mean I've give my (hypothetical) 4 year old a diet coke? Of course, not. They're getting milk to ensure adquate calcium intake. f) Given that obesity is about to eclipse smoking as the number 1 preventable killer in the industrialized world, I think the benefits of high intensity sweetners are completely justified at a public health level. f) Postmodern deconstruction of what is truth notwithstanding, the position that high intensity sweeteners are safe is not just my 'opinion/belief'. It's what the evidence shows. g) Just this week, Nature had a great article on how science is distorted in public view. Quoting from Nature 431, 1036 (28 October 2004); doi:10.1038/4311036a: > Already, scientific information is often clouded in the public arena. > Evidence from competing expert witnesses in court cases, for example, > makes it difficult for juries to decipher scientific evidence. > > Attempts at journalistic balance similarly give equal weight to ideas > that have unequal scientific support. This practice which is > neither good journalism nor an effective presentation of scientific > knowledge often creates the misconception that there is serious > scientific debate about a particular issue when, in reality, there is > virtually none. > > For example, journalists gave roughly equal attention to the views of > isolated scientists, including those funded by stakeholding > industries, long after the wider scientific community reached > consensus over the health threat posed by smoking and over the > likelihood of human-induced climate change. In the former case, > outcry from physicians and scientists finally penetrated the > disinformation campaign by the tobacco industry (to society's great > benefit). Yet in the climate-change arena, the naysayers still have a > significant voice despite the consensus against them. > > Politicians increasingly employ a similar misrepresentation of > science in public policy debates. If such manipulation is allowed to > continue, scientists' constructive provision of unbiased, realistic > assessments to policy-makers will be compromised. > > Unfortunately, calling on scientists to defend their work from > political manipulation bumps squarely against a deep reluctance among > scientists to appear partisan. After all, the impartiality of science > is largely responsible for the confidence most Americans have in > scientific information. Scientists are legitimately concerned that > advocacy may undermine the public perception that scientists are > relatively apolitical and concerned primarily with facts. But what > use is a voice that is held in high esteem but never raised? So, at the end of the day, who you want to believe is up to you Todd. But personally, I have more faith in the scientific method and peer-review than self published diatribes. John Appal Energy wrote: > So what you are saying John, and I'll let Bob speak for himself, is > that you are absolutely sure and willing to guarantee beyond all > shadow of doubt to anyone and everyone on the face of the planet that > there are no ramifications to be had from consumption of aspartame? > Not by anyone? Of any physiological disposition? At any level? Not > during any periods of gestation? Not in conjunction with any other > supplements, drugs or dietary predilections? > > To follow up on that thought, are you willing to bet your life on it > as well? After all, you are essentially betting the lives of others > on the premise of your opinion/belief and any recommendation derived > therefrom. > > Todd Swearingen > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hayes" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October > 28, 2004 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in > Quebec > > >> Bob and I aren't the only ones that think aspartame is safe. >> >> American Dietetic Association. Position of the American Dietetic >> Association: use of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners. J Am >> Diet Assoc. 2004 Feb;104(2):255-75. >> >> Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food: Update on the Safety >> of Aspartame. SCF/CS/ADD/EDUL/222 Final. Brusssels Dec 2002. >> http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/aspartameopinion.pdf >> >> Butchko HH et al. Aspartame: Review of safety. Regul Toxicol >> Pharmacol. 2002;35:S1-S93. >> >> >> >> Appal Energy wrote: >> >>> Bob, >>> >>> I'm at a bit of a loss with this one. Don't suppose you would >>> care to qualify your opinion with something more than "quack, >>> quack" would you? As I recall the last time I visited the >>> aspartame issue (researched it for several weeks, up one side and >>> down the other) the problems and concerns were very real. >>> Aspartame hasn't changed. Human biology hasn't changed. >>> >>> We both know that just because something has found its way onto >>> the shelf and been assigned a status of "below regulatory >>> concern" by a very biased institutional process that doesn't >>> somehow make reality disappear. >>> >>> Something a little more "concrete" from someone other than Donald >>> Rumsfeld would serve well at the moment. >>> >>> Todd Swearingen >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "bob allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:08 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec >>> >>> >>>> Nothing personal to you but all I can say about Mercola is >>>> QUACK, QUACK. see for example his totally bogus, nonscientific >>>> diatribe about aspertame. It is right up there with other >>>> wackos such as Betty Martini. >>>> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7469/755#76712 >>>> >>>> >>>> Legal Eagle wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for the links. Dr Marcola is a known specialist in >>>>> his field, so this should prove an interesting read. Luc >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Volker" >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, >>>>> October 27, 2004 10:18 AM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] C.Difficile >>>>> Epidemic in Quebec >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Probiotics are something I researched heavily about 6 >>>>>> months ago, when I began using what I have found to be by >>>>>> far the best available. Here is one link which explains the >>>>>> product well in summary form, and there are many sites >>>>>> which explain the homeostatic soil organism concept at >>>>>> extreme detail..The probiotic I am referring to is called >>>>>> Primal Defense, made by "Garden of Life"...visit >>>>>> http://www.risingstarlc.com/pdindex.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, regarding flu epidemics, shortages of vaccines, and >>>>>> the foolishness of using vaccines period, visit >>>>>> http://www.mercola.com/2004/oct/20/flu_vaccine.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, Dan Volker >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Legal >>>>>>> Eagle Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:13 AM To: >>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile >>>>>>> Epidemic in Quebec >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Muchas Gracias Kim; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After having a peruse I may even want to give it a link >>>>>>> in the Oragnics Section of my site or something. We all >>>>>>> need to seek out ways to better our health. No one is >>>>>>> going to avoid dying, but we sure can have a good and >>>>>>> long quality of life though. Luc PS:Maybe I should be >>>>>>> thinking of adding a section only for probiotics. I >>>>>>> already have an article on it, but sources I do not >>>>>>> have.Hmmm, worth a thought. ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: "Kim & Garth Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: >>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:08 >>>>>>> AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wonderful advice Luc. I would add that kefir taken >>>>>>>> daily really promotes good health. Kefir grains really >>>>>>>> are Mother Nature's >>>>>>> best >>>>>>>> defence for health. The nice part, is that one aquires >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> grains just by >>>>>>>> paying the shipping, then in a couple of weeks, you >>>>>>>> have lots of grains to share with family and friends. >>>>>>>> Learn more at: >>>>>>>> http://users.chariot.net.au/~dna/kefirpage.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bright Blessings, Kim >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At 07:52 AM 10/27/2004, you wrote: >>>>>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/10/26/cdiffici >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> le_queplan >>>>>>>>> 041026.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Check out what they are doing to curb it. Reducing >>>>>>> anti-biotics, duh. >>>>>>>>> Anti-biotics overuse has resulted in many more >>>>>>>>> diseases >>>>>>> than they have >>>>>>>>> "cured". All the while attacking "bad" bacteria they >>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>> eliminate "good" >>>>>>>>> bacteria leaving the immune system depleted of it's >>>>>>> defenses and then >>>>>>>>> along comes Mr. Pathogen (just like in tress) and >>>>>>>>> wreaks a >>>>>>> nightmare, >>>>>>>>> and because these pathogen are so prolific it isn't >>>>>>>>> long >>>>>>> before what >>>>>>>>> was a minor problem becomes a major health concern, >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>> like over use >>>>>>>>> of fertilizers in soil. Same causation, same effect. >>>>>>>>> When T cells are healthy the immuno functions, >>>>>>>>> including the >>>>>>> lymph, >>>>>>>>> cleans out and purify the blood and move dead cells >>>>>>>>> and other pathogens along to be disposed of, but if >>>>>>>>> the immuno functions are weakened by anti-biotic >>>>>>>>> overkill then the lymph can't do >>>>>>> it's job properly and you get ... sick. >>>>>>>>> When anti-biotics MUST be used it is recommended that >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>> probiotic such >>>>>>>>> as acidophilus accompany it to offset some of the >>>>>>>>> negative >>>>>>> effects of >>>>>>>>> the immuno depletion Of course there are exemptions, >>>>>>>>> as in >>>>>>> all rules, >>>>>>>>> but this is the standard, now starting to be admitted >>>>>>>>> by the "community" of those heralding themselves as >>>>>>>>> "health >>>>>>> experts". HRT was >>>>>>>>> a really good earner, I mean solution, until they >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>> forced to admit >>>>>>>>> it is a carcinogen. Vioxx was a really good earner, >>>>>>>>> oops, I mean solution until people started killing >>>>>>>>> themselves. Lipitor >>>>>>> wa a really >>>>>>>>> good... unti it also proveed to be counter-health >>>>>>>>> producting. Moral of the story ? Live a healthy life >>>>>>>>> and feed your body >>>>>>> with high >>>>>>>>> quality healthy fresh foods and you won't have to >>>>>>>>> worry >>>>>>> about finding >>>>>>>>> a "solution" later. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Luc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Biofuel >>>>>>>> mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>> http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>>>>>>> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): >>>>>>>> http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Biofuel >>>>>>> mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>>>>>> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): >>>>>>> http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ Biofuel >>>>>> mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel >>>>>> >>>>>> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>>>>> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): >>>>>> http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ Biofuel >>>>> mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel >>>>> >>>>> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>>>> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >>>>> >>>>> Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): >>>>> http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Bob /bob >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> The modern conservative is engaged in one of Man's oldest >>>> exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a >>>> superior moral justification for shness >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing >>>> list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel >>>> >>>> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>>> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >>>> >>>> Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): >>>> http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing >>> list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel >>> >>> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >>> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >>> >>> Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): >>> http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ >> >> >> >> -- John E Hayes, M.S. Doctoral Student in Nutritional Sciences >> University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / >> 860.486.0007 >> >> _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing >> list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel >> >> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >> >> Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): >> http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ >> > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:55:10 +0200 From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Oil Demands Can Be Met, but at a High Price, Energy Agency Says To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed This article is an example on how they now struggle to contain a potential panic and at the same time try to get some necessary actions in place. The crises will hit the US hardest and it is now a race against time, but it only take a rudimentary knowledge in basic mathematics, add, subtract, multiply and divide, to see what's coming. It is a quite remarkable attitude, that US in some way have divine rights to the worlds oil reserves, that is mirrored in the article. They now are talking about trying to survive the next 30 years and still do not work efficiently on viable energy solutions after that. Only a year ago, whenever I brought up these issues on the list, it was some who contested my opinions. Today it is a consensus around the depletion issues and the risks. It is time to do something about the excessive waste in our use of energy. US have lost the last four years, with the current administration and stand a risk of losing 4 more years. Hakan At 03:09 PM 10/29/2004, you wrote: >http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/business/28oil.html?oref=login >The New York Times > Business > >Oil Demands Can Be Met, but at a High Price, Energy Agency Says >By JAD MOUAWAD > >Published: October 28, 2004 > >LONDON, Oct. 27 - As record high prices raise concerns about future >supplies of oil, the International Energy Agency, in a new report, >stressed the need for oil-producing countries and international oil >companies to increase their investments in finding and pumping oil. > >In its report, released Tuesday, the agency says there are sufficient oil >reserves to meet demand for at least the next 30 years. But it says that >not only will oil companies have to increase their spending, but >oil-producing countries must also allow more outside access to their reserves. > >The report predicts that world oil demand will grow about 50 percent, to >121 million barrels a day, by 2030. To meet that growth, the industry will >have to spend about $105 billion each year "from the wellhead to the >consumer," according to the agency, which is an adviser to oil-consuming >nations. > >The agency has been criticized for failing to forecast growth in demand in >China this year. But its director, Claude Mandil, said that the agency's >predictions should improve now that China has agreed to share its data on >production and consumption. > >In its annual world energy outlook report, the agency warned of a drop in >oil production and shortfalls in supplies if oil companies and >oil-producing countries do not make huge investments, totaling $3 trillion >over the next three decades, in everything from developing new fields to >building more tankers, pipelines and refineries. > >"The availability of oil in terms of reserves and geology isn't an issue, >but the problem is whether the oil can find the money," Fatih Birol, the >agency's chief economist and the principal author of the report, said in >an interview. "Will that strategic meeting take place?" > >The answer will provide an indication about whether world economies should >get used to higher oil prices. > >Oil prices have gained nearly 70 percent this year, a jump of more than >$20 a barrel, as markets were jolted by the war in Iraq, unforeseen growth >in China and political uncertainty in oil-producing countries like Russia, >Venezuela and Nigeria. > >But the underlying problem is that oil production worldwide is not staying >ahead of the growth in demand. As a result, the world is left with little >spare capacity to shield against sudden interruptions in supplies. > >Oil prices closed at $52.46 a barrel on Wednesday on the New York >Mercantile Exchange, down from $55.17 a barrel on Tuesday. > >The energy agency's warning highlights concerns in the oil industry about >future access to oil reserves, the decline in production from some regions >and the volatility in oil prices. The message was echoed on Tuesday at an >industry gathering in London sponsored by the publications Energy >Intelligence and The International Herald Tribune. > >"If you want lower oil prices, you need more production relative to >demand," Jeroen van der Veer, the chairman of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, >said at the conference. "Lots of investments are needed." > >In the last decade, even as finding new oil was getting harder, oil >companies have cut their investments in new exploration after a string of >mergers led them to focus on cost-cutting and higher returns to >shareholders. As a result, the world is now producing more oil than it is >finding. > >Today, most oil producers are pumping at full capacity in an effort to >bring prices down. OPEC members, which account for half the world's >exports, are producing about 30 million barrels a day, a 25-year high and >way above the group's official quota. > >The energy agency estimates that oil demand will grow by an average 1.6 >percent a year to reach 121 million barrels a day in 2030. This year, >demand is expected to grow 3.4 percent over last year, to 82.4 million >barrels a day. > >The energy agency said oil-producing countries in the Middle East should >allow foreign investment in the production of oil. While the world is not >running out of oil, the problem is that international oil companies do not >have access to countries holding the most reserves, Mr. Mandil said. > >"We need significant contribution from the Middle East," said Mr. Birol, >the agency's chief economist. "If it doesn't come, we're in trouble." > >Some countries, like Saudi Arabia, do not allow foreign investments in >their oil industries while others, like Kuwait, Iran and the United Arab >Emirates, restrict foreign involvement. These four countries, along with >Iraq, control about 60 percent of the world's oil reserves and all are >members of OPEC. > >As production from other regions declines, OPEC will increasingly be >called on to fill the gap. By 2015, the group's market share is expected >to be around 50 percent, up from about 35 percent currently. > >Still, some OPEC countries play down the calls for them to grant more >access to Western oil companies, pointing to their past track record in >supplying oil when it was needed. Saudi Arabia is increasing its >investments to raise its capacity by 1 million barrels a day by next year, >to reach 11.5 million barrels a day. > >The agency's annual report, which provides an overview of the energy >outlook for the next 30 years, also discussed the need to compile better >information on oil production, consumption and reserves. In January, the >agency said it expected world demand to reach 79.6 million barrels this >year. That is 2.8 million barrels a day less than its current estimate, >with China accounting for some of the difference. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:01:04 +0900 From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Hello Bob, Todd and all >Appal Energy wrote: > >>Bob, >> >>I'm at a bit of a loss with this one. Don't suppose you would care >>to qualify your opinion with something more than "quack, quack" >>would you? As I recall the last time I visited the aspartame issue >>(researched it for several weeks, up one side and down the other) >>the problems and concerns were very real. Aspartame hasn't changed. >>Human biology hasn't changed. > >Neither human biology nor the scientific standards of proof. Let >me say first that I don't use aspertame, don't promote its use, or >even think it has value in our society, oh and I don't hold any >stock in or have any connection with the product. That having been >said, the facts are simple . there is no scientific evidence which >shows harm in the normal use of this product, with the single >exception of infants diagnosed with PKU. Asking me to prove it does >no harm is well nigh impossible. (the old proving a negative >problem) > >Todd, you said you investigated the issue. What are your findings. >Shouldn't the onus be on evidence of harm? No. The emphasis should be on the Precautionary Principle. Unlike citizens (allegedly), chemicals are not innocent until proven guilty. Best wishes Keith >What did you find, beyond testimonials and feeble speculation? >Animal studies, well controlled laboratory results, Double blind >trials? Where is the evidence? And I don't mean things like >"aspertame contains methanol, methanol is poisonous, therefore >Aspertame is poisonous". Or "the body is not used to amino acids". >I have seen these arguments way too many times. Give me studies in >per reviewed journals, and I will give a look see and let you know >of my conclusions. > >> >>We both know that just because something has found its way onto the >>shelf and been assigned a status of "below regulatory concern" by a >>very biased institutional process that doesn't somehow make reality >>disappear. >> >>Something a little more "concrete" from someone other than Donald >>Rumsfeld would serve well at the moment. > >Ok how about this, Some 50 plus million people here in US use it >daily, why hasn't epidemiological evidence turned up harm? I was a >graduate student many years back. I mention this only to point out >that proving that conventional wisdom is wrong is sort of a holy >grail to science researchers across the universe. If there is data >to disprove the conventional wisdom that aspertame is safe as used, >then why hasn't a graduate student in epidemiology found anything? > > >> >>Todd Swearingen <snip> ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:01:04 +0900 From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: Information on Sawdust processing To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Many thanks for the responses. I was just about to forward them to Upali Magedaragamage in Sri Lanka, but he wrote to me and said he'd also had direct response from list members, he's very grateful, and said he'll join the list himself, so I'll wait until he does that. Thanks again! regards Keith ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:01:04 +0900 From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Biofuel] The Future of Alternative Energy To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1028_041028_alternativ e_energy.html The Future of Alternative Energy Cameron Walker for National Geographic News October 28, 2004 Residential energy use in the United States will increase 25 percent by the year 2025, according to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) forecasts. A small but increasing share of that extra power will trickle in from renewable sources like wind, sunlight, water, and heat in the ground. Last year alternative energy sources provided 6 percent of the nation's energy supply, according to the DOE. "The future belongs to renewable energy," said Brad Colllins, the executive director of the American Solar Energy Society, a Boulder, Colorado-based nonprofit. Scientists and industry experts may disagree over how long the world's supply of oil and natural gas will last, but it will end, Collins said. While renewable energy is generally more expensive than conventionally produced supplies, alternative power helps to reduce pollution and to conserve fossil fuels. "People sometimes get caught up in cost-effectiveness," said Paul Torcellini, a senior engineer at the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado. "But it can be a question of values and what we spend our money on." Below, a look at some recent developments in renewable-energy technology: Solar Power Photovoltaic, or solar-electric, systems capture light energy from the sun's rays and convert it into electricity. Today these solar units power everything from small homes to large office buildings. Technological improvements have made solar-electric modules more cost-effective. In the 1980s the average price of energy captured with photovoltaics was 95 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour. Today that price has dropped to around 20 cents per kilowatt-hour, according to Collins, of the American Solar Energy Society. The cheaper rate is still more expensive than the average national price of electricity, which in 2003 was a little over 8 cents per kilowatt-hour, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Annual Energy Review. Other recent advances include "thin film" photovoltaic technology, a high-tech coating that converts any surface covered with the film into a solar-electric power source. Boats and RVs that use the film are now on the market. Engineers have also developed a roofing material coated with the electricity-producing film. "The guy who puts on the roof [on a house now] puts on the [solar] panels at the same time," Torcellini said. The roofing material withstands inclement weather and, on bright days, taps sunshine for electricity. NREL researchers, meanwhile, are working to devise more efficient and cheaper solar-electric systems. Most traditional photovoltaic solar units on the market today convert between 11 and 13 percent of the sun's light into energy. Engineers think they can improve on that. Jeff Mazer, a Washington, D.C.-area photovoltaic engineer, notes that most thin-film photovoltaic systems today have a 7 to 11 percent efficiency rating. But he estimates that thin films could surpass that rating within three years. He also notes that some new traditional solar modules achieve 15 percent efficiency and believes that figure can climb to 17 percent in the near future. In the last two decades solar-thermal panels (units used to warm household hot water, pools, and spas) have become highly efficient. Energy costs have decreased from 60 cents to 8 cents per kilowatt-hour since the 1980s, Collins said. Solar-powered water heaters are typically more expensive than conventional ones, but, as with other products that harness alternative energy, consumers benefit by knowing their energy costs up-front, Torcellini said. "Otherwise, you're hedging your bets about the future cost of [traditional] energy [sources] by using standard appliances," he said. Wind Power Compared to other renewable energy sources, wind power competes with conventional energy at a price less than 4 cents per kilowatt-hour, Collins said. Wind energy projects around the world now generate enough energy to power nine million typical U.S. homes, according to the American Wind Energy Association, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group. One of the newest trends in wind power is the construction of offshore wind farms, clusters of electricity-generating turbines erected in open-water areas with strong winds. Europe now has 17 wind farms spinning offshore. The Arklow Bank Offshore Wind Park, 8 miles (13 kilometers) off the eastern coast of Ireland, is one such project. Its seven turbines generate enough electricity to power 16,000 homes. While few homes generate their own wind power in the U.S., many power companies allow consumers to opt for power generated at a wind plant or other renewable source. On Tuesday, Colorado voters will consider a ballot initiative that would require power companies to provide 10 percent of their electricity from wind and other renewable sources by 2015. "If that passes, power companies will offer more rebates to homeowners" to encourage renewable energy production, said Sheila Hayter, an NREL senior engineer. Ground Heat Tapping into the ground offers another option to regulate household heating and cooling. In most areas of the United States, the ground below the frost line maintains an average temperature between 50 and 54 degrees Fahrenheit (10 to 12 degrees Celsius). Ground-source heat pumps, also called geo-exchange systems, use this relatively constant temperature to keep homes at comfortable temperatures. The devices employ a series of underground, liquid-filled tubes or wells. Liquid flows through the pipes into the home, where a heat exchanger either adds or subtracts heat from indoor air, depending on the season. In winter, that means added warmth captured from the ground. "If you can [do that], your furnace doesn't have to work so hard," Hayter said. A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study found that geo-exchange systems can save up to 70 percent of home-heating costs. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel End of Biofuel Digest, Vol 2, Issue 133 *************************************** _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
