;s not a question of whether the information is out
>there somewhere, it's the fact that nothing of actual substance was
>presented in the article in support of its conclusion which is presented in
>the headline.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[m
c studies. It's not a question of whether the information is out
>there somewhere, it's the fact that nothing of actual substance was
>presented in the article in support of its conclusion which is presented in
>the headline.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECT
I really couldn't figure out whether
it made my day or ruined it, LOL! All over now.
Best
Keith
>Chris
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Craig Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Sent: Thu, 22 May 2008 1:40 pm
>
Kirk McLoren wrote:
> doing on the quiet gets my vote. If you live near a reactor you need your own
> detection gear.
> That also includes people fabbing batteries for space (plutonium
> thermopiles). I guarantee
> mum is the word as liability is huge.
>
> Kirk
To me, this is really hear
ormation that is
pertinent to the content of the article. But, as I said before, I do expect
it to make an argument and support it.
Cheers
Craig
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Keith Addison
Sent: 22 May 2008 08:10 PM
To: biofuel@sustainab
Sigh... Sad stuff. That's quite some act of snipping though, LOL! And
the relevance of the Ford Pinto remains undiscovered, like everything
else. Well, nothing else for it...
<>
Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
KYOTO Pref., Japan
http://journeytoforever.org/
Biofuel list owner
>Apparently my
Apparently my mail server stumbled...
>>I've never had a Ford of any sort.
>:-) You demonstrate your ignorance. From the useless list archives:
No, I think I'd know if I'd ever owned a Ford, so no ignorance there. What
I did was ignore your argumentum ad hominem (gotta love that latin) much as
eith Addison
>Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:10 PM
>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse
>Than Nuclear Weapons
>
>Hi Andy
>
>I wonder what happened to the US plans to recycle radioactive nuclear
>wastes
>pertinent to the content of the article. But, as I said before, I do expect
>it to make an argument and support it.
>
>Cheers
>Craig
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>Keith Addison
>Sent: 22 May 2008 08:
the article. But, as I said before, I do expect
it to make an argument and support it.
Cheers
Craig
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Keith Addison
Sent: 22 May 2008 08:10 PM
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel]
ginal Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>Chip Mefford
>Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:32 PM
>To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse
>Than Nuclear We
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>Chip Mefford
>Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:32 PM
>To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse
>Than Nuclear Weapons
>
>Chip Mefford wrote:
>> Craig Barrett wrote:
>
;[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>Chip Mefford
>Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:32 PM
>To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse
>Than Nuclear Weapons
>
>Chip Mefford wrote:
>> Craig
;t, I'd want the claim verified. There do at least
>appear to be fewer naysayers in the scientific community about global
>warming these days and while there are still those who're claiming it's not
>real, or at least that we're not causing it, are finding it harder and
>
ays and while there are still those who're claiming it's not
real, or at least that we're not causing it, are finding it harder and
harder to support their stance.
By the way, in case it's not clear, I'm enjoying this. I know that I have a
tendency to get carried away and c
inal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Chip Mefford
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:32 PM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse
Than Nuclear Weapons
Chip Mefford wrote:
> Craig
or on permanent
>disability, tell me that 35% of Gulf War veterans' deaths or permanent
>disabilities have been directly linked to DU by several independent
>scientific studies. It's not a question of whether the information is out
>there somewhere, it's the fact that no
t
there somewhere, it's the fact that nothing of actual substance was
presented in the article in support of its conclusion which is presented in
the headline.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Keith Addison
Sent: 21 May 2008 07:16 PM
Chip Mefford wrote:
> Craig Barrett wrote:
>> H... while DU may be dangerous, this article doesn't help much with the
>> way it's written - poor use of statistics, no references to support its
>> claims. It's exactly this kind of shoddy work that causes the raising of
>> the skeptical eyebrow
DU being used in weapons. However, when
>I read an article that is written with this sort of quality I find it
>encouraging me to ignore it because the author has made a number of
>allegations and has written in such a way as to make it appear as if an
>argument is being made where, upon inspect
mber of
> allegations and has written in such a way as to make it appear as if an
> argument is being made where, upon inspection, it turns out that no actual
> supporting evidence is supplied to justify the conclusion.
>
> Cheers
> Craig
>
> -Original Message-
> From:
OTECTED] On Behalf Of
Kirk McLoren
Sent: 21 May 2008 03:49 PM
To: biofuel
Subject: [Biofuel] Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than
Nuclear Weapons
Society: Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear
Weapons
http://www.naturalnews.com/023274.html
(Natu
Society: Depleted Uranium Shells Used by U.S. Military Worse Than Nuclear
Weapons
http://www.naturalnews.com/023274.html
(NaturalNews) The use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions by the U.S. military
may lead to a death toll far higher than that from the nuclear bombs dropped at
the end of
23 matches
Mail list logo
