----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Linscott" <> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 09:19 Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: EPA?/consider the alternative
> *I have problem with that analogy as well. A turnip is > at least recognizable as a turnip...and usually > organics can be recognized because they tend not to be > the picture perfect produce that normally on the > shelves. How then does a one tell an organic egg from a non organic egg other than the what is said on the package? You can't, because once the organic egg has been laid, it can be subjected to the same treatment as a non-organic egg, and still be called organic. >Biodiesel on the other hand can be nearly > anything including stuff that is bad for engines and > causes air pollution. And since it is much easier and > cheaper to make biodiesel that is "dirty" there is an > incentive to cut corners and do so. Not all small > producers are saints or even knowledgeable about what > it takes to produce good clean biodiesel. To simply > take for granted that no small producer would > knowingly or unknowingly produce an inferior product > is naive. I don't know of any industry that does not > have to pay for its' own testing and I certainly don't > want the govt. providing them. The cost would be too > high and the quality too low. The govt. represents the > people (we are the idiots that elect them) and spends > their money and to burden the people with providing > free or low cost testing for COMMERCIAL production of > biodiesel would be unprecedented. Testing and proving > that the regulated product you wish to sell is not > dangerous is the responsibility of the > PRODUCER/SELLER...not the taxpayer. That is why the "big boys" can and do set the standards so high, to kill the compatition with testing cost. > ----------------------------------------- > *Unless it is tested and complies to some standard NO, > that is not what we are talking about. Wrong. Don't forget the phase "Inocent until proven guilty", your going to hear that alot. >We are talking > about an unknown ester which may or may not contain > other substances and may or may not be less toxic than > salt, more biodegradable...etc. > --------------------------------------- No we are not, we are talking about BioDiesel until someone else proves he is not producing biodiesel. > *A bit paranoid here aren't you.Central control? > The EPA WARNED him...They did not NUKE him. > ------------- Just like a bank robber that sticks a gun in your face, and warns you. > ----------- > *There are standards. The results of home biodiesel > production are highly variable. > -------------- So is the comercial production of gasoline and dinodiesel. > ------------- > *I agree. No one should be prohibited from making and > using their own biofuel. Selling it is an entirely > different matter. > -------------- Wrong. > -------------- > *Biodiesel can be a variety of things. What prevents > folks from mixing up wvo and diesel fuel and selling > it as "biodiesel"? > -------------- Then it is no longer biodiesel is it. Then if that is the case, it then becomes fraud, and he is consitered inocent until proven guilty, not guilty until he proves himself inocent in this case. > --------- > *He cannot expect anyone to accept that what he > alleges is biodiesel that is identical to that of NBB > members without submitting to the same standards of > testing that they do. His product could be anything.I > tend to believe that it is probably good clean > biodiesel. How do you know it isn't? But if I were a EPA regulator I would be > remiss in my duty if I did not require proof of his > allegations. No law requires him to be a member. The > law does require him to prove up his claim tough. Wrong, the law states that the burden of proof belongs to the EPA regulator. > Without proving that he cannot use data established > for what may in fact be some other product. Taking his > word for it is not an option...legally. > -------------- Yes it is. > ---------------- > *I don't think I am. The producer wants to sell a > product which he alleges is biodiesel that conforms to > standards which he has not proven are applicable to it > and expects a govt. regulator to accept his word in > lieu or any scientific evidence. > ---------------- If a product that meets a standard, uses a given process, and someone else uses the same process, then the burden of proof that the product does not meet standards, belongs to the govt. regulator, remember, in the USA you are inocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof belongs to the govt. The EPA broke the law. > ----------------- > *Data is only applicable to identical substances. All > he needs to do is prove his product is identical. > --------------------- As is a given process, and all that he has to show, is that the process is the same. > -------------- > *He is unfortunately a victim of his own lack of > research/business acumen but he is not a victim of the > EPA. The EPA pronounced him guilty, without proving that his product is not what he said it was. I am defending the EPA only because I have yet to > see that they have done anything other than equally > apply the law in doing their normal duties in this > case. You mean spending a a lot of money. The burden of proof is on the EPA. They proved nothing. If on the other hand, they tested the product, and it didn't meet a standard, then they would be well within the law to shut him down until he proved (by testing) that they were wrong. All commercial biodiesel producers benefit by > having these standards enforced..as well as the > breathing public. If I saw any evidence that the EPA > was in fact singling him out I would quickly > reevaluate my position. No such evidence has been > presented so far. They have not proved he was not selling anything other than BioDiesel. > That said. I would propose that any further argument > along these lines is a useless and diverting exercise > and our time would be better spent helping prevent > future economic tragedies of this type. While I am > willing to spend some of my increasingly precious time > on that project I am not willing to spend it on this. > Those of you that wish to rant about govt. oppression > can do so without my help. I want to accomplish more > than simply venting frustration. And if the > unfortunate producer that has run afoul of the EPA > wants some practical advice on how to most quickly > solve his immediate problem I can probably help. I am > willing to do so if he wants to contact me off list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include the words EPA help > in the subject line. > > Dana Linscott > <snip> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! > http://greetings.yahoo.com > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > 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 ---------------------~--> Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck Monitoring Service trial http://us.click.yahoo.com/ACHqaB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html 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/
