DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

There is a greater chance for disaster in the cooking of a lemon
souffle than in fracking an oil well.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fracking

Dangers of Fracking Noted around the Country

Catskill Mountainkeeper has noted that "A number of these
[hydrofracking] fluids qualify as hazardous materials and
carcinogens, and are toxic enough to contaminate groundwater
resources. There are cases in the U.S. where hydraulic fracturing is
the suspected source of impaired or polluted drinking water. In
Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming,
incidents have been recorded by people who have gas wells near their
homes. They have reported changes in water quality or quantity
following fracturing operations." [25] Significant harms have also
been exposed in Pennsylvania, as noted below.
Pennsylvania

On November 9, 2009, Reuters reported that the owner of 480 acres of
land in southwest Pennsylvania claimed Atlas Energy Inc. ruined his
land with toxic chemicals used in or released there by hydraulic
fracturing, and he also claimed to find seven potentially
carcinogenic chemicals above permissible levels set by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. He performed tests on his well water
a year before drilling began and said the water conditions were
"perfect." After the drilling began, water tests found arsenic at
2,600 times acceptable levels, benzene at 44 times above limits and
naphthalene five times the federal standard. He has decided to sue
Atlas Energy Inc. for negligence and is seeking an injunction against
further drilling, and unspecified financial damages. Jay Hammond,
general counsel for Atlas, said Zimmermann's claims are "completely
erroneous" and said Atlas will "vigorously" defend itself in court
and declined further comment.[26]
Later that month on November 20, 2009, Reuters reported that
residents of Dimock sued Cabot Oil & Gas Corp claiming the company's
natural-gas drilling had contaminated their water wells with toxic
chemicals, caused sickness and reduced their property values. The
complaint says residents have suffered neurological, gastrointestinal
and dermatological symptoms from exposure to tainted water. They also
say they have had blood test results consistent with exposure to
heavy metals. The lawsuit accuses Cabot of negligence and says it has
failed to restore residential water supplies disrupted by gas
drilling.[27] Contaminated water from methane gas drilling
operations, such as in Dimock, Pennsylvania, is often ten times more
toxic than water produced from petroleum production, and can contain
high concentrations of salts, acids, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
xylene, radioactive materials," and other chemicals. [28]
Colorado

Oil and gas drilling in Colorado, predominantly in western Colorado,
has raised health concerns from residents who believe the industry is
the root cause of their illnesses or that is has exacerbated disease.

Chris Mobaldi, who lived in Rifle, Colorado, believes her neurological
system was damaged by drinking water that may have been contaminated
by drilling fluids from wells around her home. She had two tumors
removed from her pituitary gland and endured excruciating pain. [29]

Odor complaints and air pollution concerns are also on the rise in
Garfield County, on the western slope, where longtime residents often
endure hazy skies in the Colorado River valley. Many believe the gas
industry is responsible. Carol and Orlyn Bell noticed a "terrible"
smell when they neared their Dry Hollow ranch, south of Silt,
Colorado. "It was the strongest odor we've smelled in the last four
years," Carol Bell said. The Bells said the odor came from nearby gas
wells and production facilities, something they've seen surround
their 110-acre ranch within the span of four years. [30] From
September to December, 2005, the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission
documented ten complaints from eight separate households related to
odors emanating from wells being drilled and completed by the Barrett
Corporation [31]
Louisiana

In the April 30, 2009 [Pro Publica]]'s Abrahm Lustgarten wrote about
a story he dug up from Louisiana's Shreveport Times. The story
revealed that 16 cattle mysteriously and abruptly dropped dead in a
"northwestern Louisiana field after apparently drinking from a
mysterious fluid adjacent to a natural gas drilling rig, according to
Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality. At least one worker
told the newspaper that the fluids . . . were used for . . .
hydraulic fracturing.[32]
Texas

In late 2007, three families near Grandview, Texas noticed changes in
their well water just after a natural gas well within a couple of
hundred yards of their properties was hydraulically fractured. Within
days, five goats and a llama had died. All three families noticed
strong sulfur smells in their water, making it unusable. At first
their water ran dry, and then the water returned with extremely high
pressure, blowing out pipes. Showering caused skin irritation. The
Railroad Commission of Texas acknowledged that testing of well water
found toluene and other toxic contaminants.[33]
Wyoming

Reuters also reports that "the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
found 14 "contaminants of concern" in 11 private wells in the central
Wyoming farming community of Pavillion, an area with about 250 gas
wells.[34]

Money quotes:
Example #1: "hydraulic fracturing is the SUSPECTED source..."

Example #2: "...owner of 480 acres ... CLAIMED Atlas Energy Inc. ruined his
land..."

Example #3: "... residents who BELIEVE the industry is the root cause of
their illnesses..."

Example #4: "...16 cattle mysteriously... dropped dead in a "northwestern
Louisiana field after APPARENTLY drinking from a mysterious fluid..."

Example #5: There may be something to this report, or at least an
unbelievably rare coincidence.

Example #6: "EPA found 14 "contaminants of concern" in 11 private wells..."
(Inference being gas wells were the source)

So, in the six references you diligently dug out, we have NONE with
unequivocal proof, such as an admission on the part of the oil/gas company,
chemical tests, or any other form of physical evidence. You may point to #6
where the EPA found contaminants, but we do not know when the contaminants
were introduced. They could have been in place for the last fifty years. All
we can tell from the study is that contaminants exist now.

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ...

At this point, I greatly question this. What good for haydraulic
fracturing is served by arsenic, by benzene (a volatile flammable liquid),
or by naphthalene (a crystalline solid benzene relative that some
mothballs are made of)?

Are you accusing the frackers of unnecessarily polluting with chemicals
that sound to me useless for hydraulic fracturing?

I'm not an authority on fracking and I assume you aren't either. So neither
of us knows if those chemicals are useless or not in this process. And
since Congress passed a law allowing the companies doing this work to keep
their formulas secret, we have no idea what they are using. But it is
curious that people had clean water before fracking was done in their area
later had their water tested and found high levels of these chemicals, isn't
it.

I agree with you, the formulas used should not be immune to disclosure
because of the alleged impact on water quality. If these companies are not
pumping these chemicals into the ground then that would help to clear them
of these accusations. But given that Republicans have control of the House
I'd say the odds of the law being changed are slim to none.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


So, in the six references you diligently dug out

One web search, took a few minutes. You should try it some time.

we have NONE with unequivocal proof, such as an admission on the part of
the oil/gas company,

LOL, even if they end up settling out of court and paying millions in
compensation they'll insist on the proverbial no admission of wrongdoing,
SOP with corporations caught doing something they aren't supposed to do.
Goldman Sachs just repeated that old formula, paid umpteen millions in fines
(a fraction of their profits on the illegal activity) but without admitting
they did anything wrong.

chemical tests, or any other form of physical evidence.

Obviously the labs that found and documented the presence of chemicals at
levels vastly above govt. standards found physical evidence.

You may point to #6 where the EPA found contaminants, but we do not know
when the contaminants were introduced. They could have been in place for
the last fifty years. All we can tell from the study is that contaminants
exist now.

And since the companies doing the fracking are allowed to keep their
formulas secret, it will be kind of tough to prove they did it, won't it.

If we could arrange for water from one of those areas where their drinking
water now has to be brought in by tanker trucks to be piped into your home,
would you use it?

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ...

At this point, I greatly question this. What good for haydraulic
fracturing is served by arsenic, by benzene (a volatile flammable liquid),
or by naphthalene (a crystalline solid benzene relative that some
mothballs are made of)?

Are you accusing the frackers of unnecessarily polluting with chemicals
that sound to me useless for hydraulic fracturing?

I'm not an authority on fracking and I assume you aren't either. So neither
of us knows if those chemicals are useless or not in this process. And
since Congress passed a law allowing the companies doing this work to keep
their formulas secret, we have no idea what they are using. But it is
curious that people had clean water before fracking was done in their area
later had their water tested and found high levels of these chemicals, isn't
it.

Did they test for these chemicals before? Post hoc ergo proctor hoc?



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


So, in the six references you diligently dug out

One web search, took a few minutes. You should try it some time.

we have NONE with unequivocal proof, such as an admission on the
part of the oil/gas company,

LOL, even if they end up settling out of court and paying millions in
compensation they'll insist on the proverbial no admission of
wrongdoing, SOP with corporations caught doing something they aren't
supposed to do. Goldman Sachs just repeated that old formula, paid
umpteen millions in fines (a fraction of their profits on the illegal
activity) but without admitting they did anything wrong.

I said "such as." Sometimes the culprit admits things didn't go as planned.
For example, the recent Department of Justice mea culpa on the "Fast &
Furious" gun-running program.

No, wait. Never mind.


chemical tests, or any other form of physical evidence.

Obviously the labs that found and documented the presence of
chemicals at levels vastly above govt. standards found physical
evidence.
You may point to #6 where the EPA found contaminants, but we do not
know when the contaminants were introduced. They could have been in
place for the last fifty years. All we can tell from the study is
that contaminants exist now.

And since the companies doing the fracking are allowed to keep their
formulas secret, it will be kind of tough to prove they did it, won't
it.

Yep. Don't forget, money is involved. The oil companies want to keep their
process confidential so their competitors remain at a disadvantage. The
homeowners see a big payday if they can get a sympathetic jury. But when the
homeowners sue, discovery will flush out (no pun intended) the chemicals
used.


If we could arrange for water from one of those areas where their
drinking water now has to be brought in by tanker trucks to be piped
into your home, would you use it?

No, I wouldn't. But I wouldn't buy property in an area where all sorts of
nastiness comes out of my well either. Presumably, the homeowner's don't
care for if they did, they would have tested the water before they moved in
and we'd have something to compare against. As it is, if they grow extra
toes, they didn't do their due diligence in the first place.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


So, in the six references you diligently dug out

One web search, took a few minutes. You should try it some time.

we have NONE with unequivocal proof, such as an admission on the
part of the oil/gas company,


If the technique you employ is so trivial, find us a reference showing
unequivocal, or at least compelling, proof that fracking poses a threat to
the water supply.

I'm willing to be persuaded, but it's got to be substantially more than
"something terrible, via an unknown method, might happen."

I think the .38 special is a fine defensive round, if you
have the right loads, and the right shot placement. The FMJ
9 MM is less than adequate.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I think the .38 special is a fine defensive round, if you
have the right loads, and the right shot placement. The FMJ
9 MM is less than adequate.

To fire a .38 Special you have to use a revolver. While simpler to operate
than an automatic, it IS more difficult for most ladies. And you only have
six opportunities to wreak havoc.

With an automatic, you can have up to 17 or so little friends to punch holes
in the object of your affection, er, attention. I even have a couple of
30-round magazines for my 9mm Glocks.

I strongly agree with your dismissal of FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) ammunition
(with one exception). Consider instead Glazer Safety (giggle) Rounds. These
bullets are frangible, meaning they disintegrate when they hit something,
rather than passing through the first thing the hit, four layers of
sheetrock, two exterior walls, and killing the baby slumbering peacefully in
its crib next door.

The one exception is wintertime in extreme climes where the do-bad may be
wearing everything he owns topped by a leather jacket. For such
eventualities, an otherwise over-penetrating round is indicated. In the
winter, I reload my carry piece with alternating Glazers and FMJs.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

I said "such as." Sometimes the culprit admits things didn't go as
planned.

Or they go exactly as planned, except for the part about getting caught.

For example, the recent Department of Justice mea culpa on the "Fast &
Furious" gun-running program.

The Govt. Does It Too is not much of an excuse for corporate misbehavior.

Yep. Don't forget, money is involved.

Money is always involved, it seems to be the one and only factor that
corporations care about.

The oil companies want to keep their process confidential so their
competitors remain at a disadvantage.

An alternative explanation is they don't want to get caught.

The homeowners see a big payday if they can get a sympathetic jury.

A farmer who has spent his life building something to pass onto his children
is not looking for a big payday, he's looking for justice because a soulless
corporation destroyed the value of his life's work.

If we could arrange for water from one of those areas where their
drinking water now has to be brought in by tanker trucks to be piped
into your home, would you use it?

No, I wouldn't. But I wouldn't buy property in an area where all sorts of
nastiness comes out of my well either. Presumably, the homeowner's don't
care for if they did, they would have tested the water before they moved
in and we'd have something to compare against. As it is, if they grow
extra toes, they didn't do their due diligence in the first place.

It seems to have escaped your eagle eye that the nastiness wasn't coming
from their wells until after the fracking, in at least one case the land
owner has water testing before and after the fracking. Or do you suppose
that a company pays the cost of trucking in water for an entire community
without making an effort to demonstrate that the local water was always
contaminated?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

I'm willing to be persuaded, but it's got to be substantially more than
"something terrible, via an unknown method, might happen."

If fracking doesn't represent a hazard to water supplies, why did Texas pass
a law requiring disclosure of chemicals used in fracking?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

To fire a .38 Special you have to use a revolver.

There have been several semi-autos that used the .38 Special cartridge,
however they were designed for target shooting. I once passed on a .38 AMU
(Amry Marksmanship Unit) 1911 because the magazines were scarce and
expensive.

While simpler to operate than an automatic, it IS more difficult for most
ladies.

I've found it easier in many cases to teach someone to use a semi-auto than
a revolver, for some reason many folks have a high fumble-factor when trying
to load a revolver (the FBI eventually came to a similar conclusion).

And you only have six opportunities to wreak havoc.

There are seven and eight shot revolvers on the market, serious cartridges
too, like .357.

I even have a couple of 30-round magazines for my 9mm Glocks.

Look into .40 S&W, way more stopping power in a package the same size. One
of those full of say Federal Hydroshocks takes care of your concerns about
heavy winter clothing without penetrating walls.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...


Did they test for these chemicals before? Post hoc ergo proctor hoc?

Apparently at least some did according to the article I quoted. And there
is the issue that if someone has lived on a farm for years or decades
without trouble with their water and suddenly after fracking in their area
their water is unusable that would seem to point to the fracking as the
source of the problem. Even Texas now requires companies to disclose their
fracking formulas (with a predictable proprietary loophole) so concerns over
fracking are not confined to tree-hugging eco-loonies.

DGDevin wrote:

Apparently at least some did according to the article I quoted. And
there is the issue that if someone has lived on a farm for years or
decades without trouble with their water and suddenly after fracking
in their area their water is unusable that would seem to point to the
fracking as the source of the problem. Even Texas now requires
companies to disclose their fracking formulas (with a predictable
proprietary loophole) so concerns over fracking are not confined to
tree-hugging eco-loonies.

Concerns could be confined, however, to tree-hugging eco-loonies who vote
and these concerns could best be characterized by high decibels.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

I'm willing to be persuaded, but it's got to be substantially more
than "something terrible, via an unknown method, might happen."

If fracking doesn't represent a hazard to water supplies, why did
Texas pass a law requiring disclosure of chemicals used in fracking?

I don't know. I can guess, though I don't like to do that. Your best bet is
to ask a member of the Texas legislature.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Even Texas now requires
companies to disclose their fracking formulas (with a predictable
proprietary loophole) so concerns over fracking are not confined to
tree-hugging eco-loonies.

Concerns could be confined, however, to tree-hugging eco-loonies who vote
and these concerns could best be characterized by high decibels.

Can I get an English translation on that one?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

If fracking doesn't represent a hazard to water supplies, why did
Texas pass a law requiring disclosure of chemicals used in fracking?

I don't know. I can guess, though I don't like to do that.

LOL, yeah, your strict adherence to heavily documented facts and figures is
a byword around here.

On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 10:03:45 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I think the .38 special is a fine defensive round, if you
have the right loads, and the right shot placement. The FMJ
9 MM is less than adequate.

To fire a .38 Special you have to use a revolver. While simpler to operate
than an automatic, it IS more difficult for most ladies. And you only have
six opportunities to wreak havoc.

Revolvers actually make great purse guns. They're "safer" than autos and more
compact. A hammerless revolver is perfect for such an application. My 6" 686
isn't, however. ;-) Either will make a perp **** pants.

With an automatic, you can have up to 17 or so little friends to punch holes
in the object of your affection, er, attention. I even have a couple of
30-round magazines for my 9mm Glocks.

I have a 32-round magazine for my Beretta but it's hardly something I'd carry
around for protection. A bit on the difficult side to conceal, too.

I strongly agree with your dismissal of FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) ammunition
(with one exception). Consider instead Glazer Safety (giggle) Rounds. These
bullets are frangible, meaning they disintegrate when they hit something,
rather than passing through the first thing the hit, four layers of
sheetrock, two exterior walls, and killing the baby slumbering peacefully in
its crib next door.

The one exception is wintertime in extreme climes where the do-bad may be
wearing everything he owns topped by a leather jacket. For such
eventualities, an otherwise over-penetrating round is indicated. In the
winter, I reload my carry piece with alternating Glazers and FMJs.

In article , DGDevin wrote:


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
om...

Did they test for these chemicals before? Post hoc ergo proctor hoc?

Apparently at least some did according to the article I quoted. And
there is the issue that if someone has lived on a farm for years or
decades without trouble with their water and suddenly after fracking in
their area their water is unusable that would seem to point to the
fracking as the source of the problem.

There is still an issue: Which specific toxic or politically-incorrect
chemicals were tested for *quantatively* both before and after, and which
ones were only tested for to that extent after?

Even Texas now requires companies to disclose their fracking formulas
(with a predictable proprietary loophole) so concerns over fracking are
not confined to tree-hugging eco-loonies.

I don't like American businessmen being cowboys free to play with all
kinds of big guns and screw whoever. I don't want them to be free to lie
and cheat, and to lie about their products and their polluting activities.

On the other hand, I see a big problem with chemophobia in USA. For
hypothetical example, "I just had my wellwater tested for arsenic and
benzene for the first time, done so a year after the frackers moved in 20
miles north of me. Results were 3 parts per trillion of arsenic and 1
part per trillion of benzene. THESE ARE TOXIC CHEMICALS REQUIRING ZERO
TOLERANCE!"

I hope you get my points.
--
- Don Klipstein )

In article , DGDevin wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...

So, in the six references you diligently dug out

One web search, took a few minutes. You should try it some time.

we have NONE with unequivocal proof, such as an admission on the part of
the oil/gas company,

LOL, even if they end up settling out of court and paying millions in
compensation they'll insist on the proverbial no admission of wrongdoing,
SOP with corporations caught doing something they aren't supposed to do.
Goldman Sachs just repeated that old formula, paid umpteen millions in fines
(a fraction of their profits on the illegal activity) but without admitting
they did anything wrong.

chemical tests, or any other form of physical evidence.

Obviously the labs that found and documented the presence of chemicals at
levels vastly above govt. standards found physical evidence.

You may point to #6 where the EPA found contaminants, but we do not know
when the contaminants were introduced. They could have been in place for
the last fifty years. All we can tell from the study is that contaminants
exist now.

And since the companies doing the fracking are allowed to keep their
formulas secret, it will be kind of tough to prove they did it, won't it.

If we could arrange for water from one of those areas where their drinking
water now has to be brought in by tanker trucks to be piped into your home,
would you use it?

Although I disagree with secrecy of indredients dumped or leaked into
the environment,

Were the specific bad contaminants found to have changed from
below-standards to above-standards as a result of fracking, or were they
only measured after?

I don't like cowboy mentality of Congress-lobbying businesses, but I
similarly dislike American-style chemophobia that likes to do post-hoc-
ergo-proptor-hoc, and to say that zero tolerance is necessary for
politically incorrect chemicals; even a picogram per gigaton is toxic
and needs to be eliminated.
--
- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ...

There is still an issue: Which specific toxic or politically-incorrect
chemicals were tested for *quantatively* both before and after, and which
ones were only tested for to that extent after?

Interesting that you should use the word quantitative given that this law in
Texas apparently doesn't require companies to say how much of which
chemicals they are using, in addition to allowing them to withhold info on
chemicals they consider proprietary.

I don't like American businessmen being cowboys free to play with all
kinds of big guns and screw whoever. I don't want them to be free to lie
and cheat, and to lie about their products and their polluting activities.

What are you, some kind of commie?

On the other hand, I see a big problem with chemophobia in USA. For
hypothetical example, "I just had my wellwater tested for arsenic and
benzene for the first time, done so a year after the frackers moved in 20
miles north of me. Results were 3 parts per trillion of arsenic and 1
part per trillion of benzene. THESE ARE TOXIC CHEMICALS REQUIRING ZERO
TOLERANCE!"

I hope you get my points.

Your points would be more convincing if they were factually correct, as even
public water systems are allowed ten parts per billion for arsenic and five
parts per billion for benzene.

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesr...enic/index.cfm

"EPA has set the arsenic standard for drinking water at .010 parts per
million (10 parts per billion) to protect consumers served by public water
systems from the effects of long-term, chronic exposure to arsenic."

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contamina...on/benzene.cfm

"The MCLG for benzene is zero. EPA has set this level of protection based on
the best available science to prevent potential health problems. EPA has set
an enforceable regulation for benzene, called a maximum contaminant level
(MCL), at 0.005 mg/L or 5 ppb."

" wrote in
:

On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 10:03:45 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I think the .38 special is a fine defensive round, if you
have the right loads, and the right shot placement. The FMJ
9 MM is less than adequate.

9mm has much more muzzle energy than .38 SPCL. (not considering +P)
ISTR a handgun that could fire either of them,used moon clips for the 9mm
rounds. .38SPCL is useable,though.

To fire a .38 Special you have to use a revolver.
While simpler to
operate than an automatic, it IS more difficult for most ladies. And
you only have six opportunities to wreak havoc.

Revolvers actually make great purse guns. They're "safer" than autos

some semi-autos have a DA trigger that is as safe as a revolver's trigger.
you can even get DA-only(DAO) trigger semi-autos.

and more compact. A hammerless revolver is perfect for such an
application. My 6" 686 isn't, however. ;-) Either will make a perp
**** pants.

With an automatic, you can have up to 17 or so little friends to punch
holes in the object of your affection, er, attention. I even have a
couple of 30-round magazines for my 9mm Glocks.

I have a 32-round magazine for my Beretta but it's hardly something
I'd carry around for protection. A bit on the difficult side to
conceal, too.

Heh,A bit.... :-)

I strongly agree with your dismissal of FMJ (Full Metal Jacket)
ammunition (with one exception). Consider instead Glazer Safety
(giggle) Rounds. These bullets are frangible, meaning they
disintegrate when they hit something, rather than passing through the
first thing the hit, four layers of sheetrock, two exterior walls, and
killing the baby slumbering peacefully in its crib next door.

Glasers are expensive,too.


The one exception is wintertime in extreme climes where the do-bad may
be wearing everything he owns topped by a leather jacket. For such
eventualities, an otherwise over-penetrating round is indicated. In
the winter, I reload my carry piece with alternating Glazers and FMJs.



sometime,I might need to shoot through a wall or car door.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

HeyBub wrote:
Protecting the public is a laudable goal. As I recall, however, the
EPA requires testing for arsenic and other things deemed nasty on a
fairly regular basis by virtually every water distribution system.

surprisingly though, private wells are exempt, even in areas where it is
known to have very high levels of arsenic.

One problem is that the test is not cheap and this cost is imposed on
systems that have never had a detectable amount of arsenic (and other
nasties) in their water. A small system, say serving 250 customers,
will be hard-pressed to devote several thousand dollars a year
looking for something that has never existed.

Still, it's for the children and that condition trumps all other
considerations.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

Protecting the public is a laudable goal. As I recall, however, the EPA
requires testing for arsenic and other things deemed nasty on a fairly
regular basis by virtually every water distribution system. One problem is
that the test is not cheap and this cost is imposed on systems that have
never had a detectable amount of arsenic (and other nasties) in their
water. A small system, say serving 250 customers, will be hard-pressed to
devote several thousand dollars a year looking for something that has
never existed.

Should a restaurant that only serves a few hundred customers be exempt from
food safety laws?

However I'd be in favor of such a system being allowed to test less often if
it can document the lack of such substances in the past, say every five
years.

Still, it's for the children and that condition trumps all other
considerations.

Bumper stickers belong on your car, not in your brain.

DGDevin wrote:

Still, it's for the children and that condition trumps all other
considerations.

Bumper stickers belong on your car, not in your brain.

You'll have to give the conservatives credit, though. Our positions are made
for bumper stickers.

"Vote against Obama. Make it Unanimous"

Not to say the progressives don't have their moments:

"Frodo failed. Bush has the Ring" or, my favorite,

"South Austin: We're all here because we're not all there"

Jim Yanik wrote:
I strongly agree with your dismissal of FMJ (Full Metal Jacket)
ammunition (with one exception). Consider instead Glazer Safety
(giggle) Rounds. These bullets are frangible, meaning they
disintegrate when they hit something, rather than passing through
the first thing the hit, four layers of sheetrock, two exterior
walls, and killing the baby slumbering peacefully in its crib next
door.

Glasers are expensive,too.



Yep. But consider the alternative. When using Glaser SAFETY rounds, the
prosecutor cannot say to the jury: "When the defendant [you] left his home,
he loaded his weapon with Enraged Rhino Atomic Exploding Devastator bullets.
He INTENDED to wreak havoc, mayhem, and maximum injury on any innocents he
encountered. You can infer this by his choice of ammunition!"

And, heck, if Glasers save one innocent baby's life...



sometime,I might need to shoot through a wall or car door.

12-gauge with slugs.

Jim Yanik wrote:

9mm has much more muzzle energy than .38 SPCL. (not considering +P)
ISTR a handgun that could fire either of them,used moon clips for the
9mm rounds. .38SPCL is useable,though.

Screw that. You want a crowd-killing revolver? Get a Taurus Judge. Shoots
..410 shotgun and .45 long Colt ammunition. Load three of each and you're the
meanest SOB in the valley.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

Bumper stickers belong on your car, not in your brain.

You'll have to give the conservatives credit, though. Our positions are
made for bumper stickers.

Sadly they rarely go beyond bumper stickers.

Not to say the progressives don't have their moments:

"Frodo failed. Bush has the Ring"

Stop Mad Cowboy Disease

Bush 2004--Four More Wars

On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:04:25 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

DGDevin wrote:

Still, it's for the children and that condition trumps all other
considerations.

Bumper stickers belong on your car, not in your brain.

You'll have to give the conservatives credit, though. Our positions are made
for bumper stickers.

"Vote against Obama. Make it Unanimous"

Not to say the progressives don't have their moments:

"Frodo failed. Bush has the Ring" or, my favorite,

"South Austin: We're all here because we're not all there"

I liked the Vermont bumper sticker wars before they legalized civil unions.

The first: Take Vermont Back
A few weeks later: Take Vermont Forward
Right after: Take Vermont from Behind

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Yep. But consider the alternative. When using Glaser SAFETY rounds, the
prosecutor cannot say to the jury: "When the defendant [you] left his
home, he loaded his weapon with Enraged Rhino Atomic Exploding Devastator
bullets. He INTENDED to wreak havoc, mayhem, and maximum injury on any
innocents he encountered. You can infer this by his choice of ammunition!"

The prosecutor would paint a vivid picture of the Glaser ammo being designed
to produce horrific and highly lethal wounds and the average jury member
would buy that. That fact that hollow-point bullets (which in effect the
Glaser is) are banned for military use because they produce such horrible
wounds would probably come up as well. Remember, it's what a lawyer can
convince a jury to believe that counts.

I wonder why the air marshals didn't permanently go with Glaser ammo, you'd
think it would be perfect for their job. There is also the point that
frequent practice with your defensive ammo of choice is a good idea, and
Glaser ammo is quite expensive.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Screw that. You want a crowd-killing revolver? Get a Taurus Judge. Shoots
.410 shotgun and .45 long Colt ammunition. Load three of each and you're
the meanest SOB in the valley.

That would be a good trick considering the Judge only holds five rounds.

Why go with a five-shot revolver when you could get an eight-shot .357 like
a Taurus 608? Just as much muzzle energy (depending on the cartridge) and
three more shots. Or are you under the impression that burglars are
susceptible to the sheer scariness of some handguns and will flee when
confronted by someone holding handgun A while handgun B will inspire them to
attack?

DGDevin wrote:

Bush 2004--Four More Wars

For some of us, that would be an incentive to vote for Bush.

In our view, we need a war every ten years or so to keep the tip of the
spear sharp. (How long the wars should last is another matter entirely.)

Right now there's not a commander in the field, from sergeant to general,
who hasn't lead men in combat! You can't BUY that kind of competence.

DGDevin wrote:

The prosecutor would paint a vivid picture of the Glaser ammo being
designed to produce horrific and highly lethal wounds and the average
jury member would buy that. That fact that hollow-point bullets
(which in effect the Glaser is) are banned for military use because
they produce such horrible wounds would probably come up as well.
Remember, it's what a lawyer can convince a jury to believe that
counts.

I agree and, as I said, it's easier for the prosecution to make a case if
the ammunition used was marketed as a mutilating round instead of a "safety"
bullet.

The defense would counter with all the safety features built into the round:
It will not over-penetrate or ricochet, it expends all its energy in the
first thing it hits, thereby protecting innocents in the vicinity, and so
forth.

I urge you to refrain from commenting on matters of detail of which you know
little. Glasers are NOT hollow-point bullets. As such, they are NOT banned
for use in warfare and, in fact, ARE used in some military operations (i.e.,
SEAL team type operations). The bullets are "frangible" which means they
break apart or disintegrate when they hit something harder than they are.
They are made of composite. (plastics) that are fused or glued together.

In addition, and you'll no doubt support this, they are LEAD FREE, thereby
saving the children.


I wonder why the air marshals didn't permanently go with Glaser ammo,
you'd think it would be perfect for their job. There is also the
point that frequent practice with your defensive ammo of choice is a
good idea, and Glaser ammo is quite expensive.

Yeah, but if it's for the children, cost be damned.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Screw that. You want a crowd-killing revolver? Get a Taurus Judge.
Shoots .410 shotgun and .45 long Colt ammunition. Load three of each
and you're the meanest SOB in the valley.

That would be a good trick considering the Judge only holds five
rounds.

You're correct. My mistake. I was thinking of the appellate division model.


Why go with a five-shot revolver when you could get an eight-shot
.357 like a Taurus 608? Just as much muzzle energy (depending on the
cartridge) and three more shots. Or are you under the impression
that burglars are susceptible to the sheer scariness of some handguns
and will flee when confronted by someone holding handgun A while
handgun B will inspire them to attack?

Couple of reasons: First, the Judge can fire .410 shotgun ammo. You are
almost guaranteed a hit in a darkened hallway - maybe only a sting, but the
damage to the squint goes from a twitch to death.

Second, one purpose of a firearm is intimidation. That's why police agencies
abandoned flap holsters many years ago; the mere sight of a pistol has a
calming effect on most slopes. While not a BIG intimidating factor, the
bigger the weapon the more sobering effect on the stink-eye.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Bush 2004--Four More Wars

For some of us, that would be an incentive to vote for Bush.

Exactly, it's an ongoing problem.

In our view, we need a war every ten years or so to keep the tip of the
spear sharp. (How long the wars should last is another matter entirely.)

That's one of many problems with wars of choice, they have a way of getting
out of control. They also alienate allies, waste resources and tie down
forces needed elsewhere.

Right now there's not a commander in the field, from sergeant to general,
who hasn't lead men in combat! You can't BUY that kind of competence.

Last year more members of the American armed services committed suicide than
died in combat. But I forget, you don't care much about stuff like that,
since they volunteered their lives can be squandered in any half-witted
adventure the CinC can dream up.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

I agree and, as I said, it's easier for the prosecution to make a case if
the ammunition used was marketed as a mutilating round instead of a
"safety" bullet.

All it would take is big color photos of wounds caused by such ammo to
convince the jury that the "safety" label was nonsense.

I urge you to refrain from commenting on matters of detail of which you
know little. Glasers are NOT hollow-point bullets.

They're de facto hollow-points filled with birdshot.

As such, they are NOT banned for use in warfare and, in fact, ARE used in
some military operations (i.e., SEAL team type operations).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../frangible.htm

"Frangible rounds are available in a wide array of pistol calibers, but due
to the inherently high velocities of rifle rounds, frangible ammunition is
much less effective in rifles. It is only produced in 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm
NATO, and its performance in actual combat is dubious. There are two
frangible rounds that have been approved for training purposes only. One is
a 9mm, and the other a 5.56. Approval for operational use will depend on the
special mission requirements (the military necessity) for the round."

In addition, and you'll no doubt support this, they are LEAD FREE, thereby
saving the children.

If only the dangers of infants eating lead paint chips had been better known
when you were a child....

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:



Right now there's not a commander in the field, from sergeant to general,
who hasn't lead men in combat! You can't BUY that kind of competence.

Last year more members of the American armed services committed suicide than
died in combat. But I forget, you don't care much about stuff like that,
since they volunteered their lives can be squandered in any half-witted
adventure the CinC can dream up.
Which means nothing. 2008, the last year I can find actual rates of
suicide, the 17.5 soldiers committing suicide per 100,000 soliders was a
tick below the rate for civilians. What is interesting, is that there is
an increase because the rate actually used to be much below the civilian
rate.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Couple of reasons: First, the Judge can fire .410 shotgun ammo. You are
almost guaranteed a hit in a darkened hallway - maybe only a sting, but
the damage to the squint goes from a twitch to death.

Hogwash. Can you document that the shot spread from a .410 fired from a
Judge would cover the average residential hallway at the ranges at which
such an encounter is likely to occur? This issue has come up here before,
and we learned that at realistic home-defense ranges the spread of shot from
a short-barreled shotgun is so small as to be pointless.

Second, one purpose of a firearm is intimidation. That's why police
agencies abandoned flap holsters many years ago; the mere sight of a
pistol has a calming effect on most slopes. While not a BIG intimidating
factor, the bigger the weapon the more sobering effect on the stink-eye.

So last paragraph you were painting a picture of a dark hallway in which one
would need to spray shot around to get a hit, but now suddenly the burglar
can see and identify the model of firearm you're holding and be intimidated
by the awesome manliness of your choice of weapon. More hogwash.

I understand why gun makers produce these goofball weapons, there is a
steady market for them with people who like to fantasize about their
self-defense needs and have a weakness for movie prop firearms. Meanwhile,
back on planet Earth the common sense approach is to rely on a controllable,
reliable weapon with enough stopping power to deliver one-shot results, and
to get in plenty of practice. But don't let that stop you from buying a
..50cal hand cannon with a bayonet mount if that floats your boat, somebody
has to buy that silly stuff to keep the gun makers in business. Just keep
in mind that fishing lures aren't designed to catch fish, they're designed
to catch fishermen.

In , Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

Right now there's not a commander in the field, from sergeant to general,
who hasn't lead men in combat! You can't BUY that kind of competence.

Last year more members of the American armed services committed suicide
than died in combat. But I forget, you don't care much about stuff like
that, since they volunteered their lives can be squandered in any
half-witted adventure the CinC can dream up.

Which means nothing. 2008, the last year I can find actual rates of
suicide, the 17.5 soldiers committing suicide per 100,000 soliders was a
tick below the rate for civilians. What is interesting, is that there is
an increase because the rate actually used to be much below the civilian
rate.

You think USA's overall suicide rate or civilian suicide rate exceeds
17.5 per 100,000 per year?

Can you cite that?

I can cite that USA's overall rate was about 11 in 2007:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Su...0000-trend.jpg

11.5 per 100,000, looking somewhat likely for 2008:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

For higher-side figures, there is:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28895624...ry/t/suicides-
continue-alarming-rise-military/

The Army calculates its suicide rate to have risen to 20.2 per
100,000, and I did not see clear mention of what year, maybe 2008 since
this article was published in 2009.

(No per-100,000 rate for all branches of the military, but in this 2009
article the Army mentions 128 suicides and 15 other deaths under
investigation as suicides.)

Offered for comparison was American males 18-24, and the rate was 19.8
per 100,000.

So, it is looking like military suicide rate rose to about that of
comparable-age-gender-demographics civilians.

--
- Don Klipstein )

In art. , DGDevin wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in .. .

I agree and, as I said, it's easier for the prosecution to make a case
if the ammunition used was marketed as a mutilating round instead of a
"safety" bullet.

All it would take is big color photos of wounds caused by such ammo to
convince the jury that the "safety" label was nonsense.

I urge you to refrain from commenting on matters of detail of which you
know little. Glasers are NOT hollow-point bullets.

They're de facto hollow-points filled with birdshot.

If they create horrible wounds, with great rapid blood loss if they hit
a broad area of the chest especially in the lungs, then they cause quick
incapacitation without necessity to achieve shot placement to the heart,
aorta or brainstem or spinal cord.

Self-defense by use of a gun is better served by quick incapacitation of
your enemy, which has a significant fatality rate. Deterrence achieved
without firing a shot is usually achieved through threat of death,
secondarily threat of great weakening leading to arrest and/or major body
damage - if survived.

Why else have a gun?

Yes, I am aware of training classes towards carrying permits that
advise to carry what the cops carry, nothing "deadlier". Thankfully for
Philadelphia, their cops have 4 official options (that they have to pay
for) to officially-on-duty-carry heavier-caliber sidearms than the
standard-issue-for-free 9 mm one.

As such, they are NOT banned for use in warfare and, in fact, ARE
used in some military operations (i.e., SEAL team type operations).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../frangible.htm

"Frangible rounds are available in a wide array of pistol calibers, but
due to the inherently high velocities of rifle rounds, frangible
ammunition is much less effective in rifles.

I can see issue of the bullet breaking up before hitting its target if
it has to be accelerated to ~3,000 feet/second / ~900 meters/second.

Other than that, if the target is unarmored personnel, and a frangible
or hollowpoint bullet stays intact until impact, what better to use?

It is only produced in 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO, and its performance
in actual combat is dubious. There are two frangible rounds that have
been approved for training purposes only. One is a 9mm, and the other a
5.56.

Can you get your story straight as to whether the one other than 5.56mm
is 7.62mm or 9mm?
Otherwise, one approved for training purposes only is not produced.
Unless, approved-for-training-only is not necessarily being produced.
That could mean 7.62mm is in production and not limited to training.
For that matter, is 5.56 mm production limited to a specific item only
approved for training?

Furthermore, there is common usage of a 5.56 mm round that often
fragments if it hits human bodies within 150 meters or whatever.

There is a requirement for military rounds to not flatten or expand
after getting into a human body: Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration
III.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

That follows St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868.

There is such a thing as a jurisdiction that restricts towards
generally-prohibiting hollow-point ammo, but requires bullets that
*do* expand after impact in some of the few areas where it is legal to
use guns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_...United_Kingdom

The hollow-point article in Wikipedia mentions desireability for
usually stopping in first human it hits in police work and civilian
self-defense. Same can be said of frangible bullets.

Approval for operational use will depend on the special mission
requirements (the military necessity) for the round."

There is some desire for military rifle rounds to be penetrating - such
as for use against vehicle occupants, vehicle gasoline tanks, and enemies
wearing lighter-weight body armor.

SNIP stuff on lead and children
--
- Don Klipstein )

In , DGDevin wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...

Couple of reasons: First, the Judge can fire .410 shotgun ammo. You are
almost guaranteed a hit in a darkened hallway - maybe only a sting, but
the damage to the squint goes from a twitch to death.

Hogwash. Can you document that the shot spread from a .410 fired from a
Judge would cover the average residential hallway at the ranges at which
such an encounter is likely to occur? This issue has come up here before,
and we learned that at realistic home-defense ranges the spread of shot
from a short-barreled shotgun is so small as to be pointless.

A pistol usually has a shorter barrel than most short-barrel shotguns.

Second, one purpose of a firearm is intimidation. That's why police
agencies abandoned flap holsters many years ago; the mere sight of a
pistol has a calming effect on most slopes. While not a BIG intimidating
factor, the bigger the weapon the more sobering effect on the stink-eye.

So last paragraph you were painting a picture of a dark hallway in which
one would need to spray shot around to get a hit, but now suddenly the
burglar can see and identify the model of firearm you're holding and be
intimidated by the awesome manliness of your choice of weapon. More
hogwash.

Enemy is not always a burglar, and not always threatening in such dark
situations. One's self-defense weapon should be useful at intimidation
when seen in lighting conditions that allow it to be seen, which I expect
to be more than 0% of the time.

SNIP stuff from here 1st line of which includes "goofball weapons"
--
- Don Klipstein )