On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 20:01:22 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:45:30 -0600, Ignoramus18213
wrote:

On 2014-02-06, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:04:35 -0800, wrote:

SNIP
Burning
fossil fuels releases carbon into the environment, and energy too,
that was sequestered thousands or millions of years ago. Burning
vegetable matter and releasing CO2 at a rate slower than it absorbs as
it grows does not add to the net carbon in the air or the heat of the
planet. But unless burned in a proper power plant with scrubbers that
remove everything except CO2, vegetable matter burning can and does
contribute all sorts of particulates and other bad stuff to the air.

Who brainwashed you to think along this line? (Sorry, but that's the
way I see it.)

I'm thinking we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
If I only burn plants that growing now then I'm not adding to the
total carbon in the environment. But if I burn fossil fuels then I am
adding to the carbon in the environment. The environment being the
surface of the earth where everything lives. Or am I wrong. And if so
please point out where I'm making a misteak.

The steak is missing where you think putting pollution into the air
where is WAS on the ground is OK while taking it from under the ground
is not OK. It's the same to me. Cutting down a tree removes if from
taking CO2 from the air and producing oxygen. Then you want to burn
it, on top of that?

So, using a fuel (wood) which is four hundred times more polluting
than another (propane/natgas), while being -aware- of that difference,
seems downright irresponsible. That's where we differ. I don't see
folks who do this as having any kind of moral high ground at all.

Growing trees to compensate for our carbon footprint is fine with me,
but reducing the amount of our pollution seems to be the best bet yet.
I've been an environmentalist since 1969, but refuse to call myself
that any more, given the total ecoterrorist makeup of most enviros
nowadays. Crikey, what a mess.

The cut down tree will be replaced with another tree, which will
absorb carbon when growing.

It will take 15-100 years for the new tree to replace the CO2-sucking
capabilities of its predecessor. Yes, plant trees, but don't think
that a sapling is anything like its senior citizen tree when it comes
to cleaning air and producing oxygen.


And the EPA wants to take the last ten-billionth of a percent of
something instead of stopping things which are putting out tens of
percents of those ghastly greenhouse gases. Go figure. Me? I take
the cuts where they matter most. Like swapping from coal to nuclear
power. INSTANT (what, 50%?) decrease in global greenhouse emissions
and a metric ****load less heat produced, too.

Pardon my tangent there. I was pointing out the silly things which
they're outlawed in industry for the past several decades while not
even addressing the things which would make real change happen in
lowering the overall national pollution.


With stoves, EPA is concerned not with carbon emissions, but with fine
particulate emissions (smoke), which are bad for your neighbors'
health. This fine particulates is what causes the polluted air horrors
in China.

Yes, I feel it's time to address the wood smoke pollution. Absolutely.
I had trouble breathing today on the trip to my mailbox. I was out of
breath and feeling green when I completed the 90 steps due to the leaf
burning and woodstoves combined with this inversion layer. Ick!


Once I understood what it was all about, it made complete sense to me
and I do not think that EPA is on a very wrong track. What it wants is
stove designs that burn better and emit less smoke.

Overall, the EPA is on an extremely bad track. It will continue to do
very little for the environment while running companies out of
business and costing humans thousands of times more than it should.
I hope their stove regulation changes make good headway into the
problem without causing undue strain on the poor. Why doesn't the EPA
charge more for recurring fines paid by large corporations who
knowingly break the law? The EPA goes after the little guys and
charges them a lot more than it does the corps, fer Crom's sake. A
guy spills a quart of oil and is fined more than the corp who gassed
an entire town, etc. So far, it's considerably cheaper for corps to
break laws (and get away with it) rather than update their anti-smog
technology with existing fixes. Those fines could pay for new tech
where it's needed. Win/Win!


The problem is that y'all really don't want to do anything about the
CO2 content, you just want to dance around and give the impression
that you are doing something.

I've read some pretty definitive numbers that demonstrate that a major
cause of high CO2 levels is the private owned motor vehicle, but has
anyone suggested banning them? Nope. Everyone NEEDs his big SUV, NEEDS
it, I say!

Nope, don't even think of banning the big producers. Quick, get that
Boy Scout... looks like he might light a campfire.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2014-02-07, wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:45:30 PM UTC-5, Ignoramus18213 wrote:

Once I understood what it was all about, it made complete sense to me

and I do not think that EPA is on a very wrong track. What it wants is

stove designs that burn better and emit less smoke.



i

But the EPA is not doing all it could to get people to use better
stove designs. The EPA is never going to manage to prevent people
from building wood stoves. And as it is most of those home built
stoves will not burn well and will emit a lot of smoke. But if the
EPA did some research on wood burning and set up some way for people
to purchase EPA approved plans for high efficiency wood stoves.
Then people would build better stoves and there would be less
pollution. In fact if people could purchase a right to build a good
wood stove at a reasonable price, I think people would replace the
poor designed stoves with better stoves.

So I think the EPA is on the wrong track, or at least not the best
track.

It regulates what it can, which is commercial stove industry. And it
demanded that the industry makes stoves based on modern less-polluting
designs.

Makes sense to me. Stoves are not banned, they just need to be made
right. Existing stoves are not affected.

i

On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:20:45 PM UTC-5, Ignoramus26948 wrote:



It regulates what it can, which is commercial stove industry. And it

demanded that the industry makes stoves based on modern less-polluting

designs.



Makes sense to me. Stoves are not banned, they just need to be made

right. Existing stoves are not affected.



i

It regulates the commercial stove industy , but also regulates the home built stoves. You can not install a home built stove unless you have it tested by a testing lab. So effectively you can not legally install a home built stove.

And unlike say the government U.S. Forest Products Lab, the EPA does not publish anything to help individuals. They should be doing research on designing better stoves and making plans available to individuals.

Dan

SNIP
The steak is missing where you think putting pollution into the air
where is WAS on the ground is OK while taking it from under the ground
is not OK. It's the same to me. Cutting down a tree removes if from
taking CO2 from the air and producing oxygen. Then you want to burn
it, on top of that?
I didn't say polluting the air was OK. And just because it's the same
to you, whether the carbon comes from fossil fuels or from trees,
doesn't mean that they are the same. Carbon added to our environment
that was sequestered millions of years ago is not the same as carbon
released from burning vegetation that is growing now. No matter what
you think. As far as pollution in its entirety from wood burning
stoves compared to burning propane you are correct that burning
propane in a modern heater pollutes less. much less. If a wood burning
stove was built that released only the same pollutants in the same
quantities for the same BTU output as burning propane the stove would
have a less harmful effect on our environment. If we don't stop adding
the CO2 to our environment from fossil fuel burning our planet is
going to experience general warming. And that most likely would be a
bad thing as far as human life is concerned. I do worry about the
stuff that comes out of my fireplace. I have to weigh the total
pollutants released against not adding to the total carbon load of our
present day environment. And I have vacillated about which is best. At
the same time I drive a car that burns fossil fuels and I heat my shop
with propane. Which shows that I'm not always doing what's best for
our planet. I do try to rely on the best scientific evidence to make
my decisions, not a particular political viewpoint. And I am not
going to say any more about this on RCM. In fact, I shouldn't have
posted several of the messages I did on this subject because they
weren't metal related. If you want to correspond with me any more
about this then please send me an email.
Cheers,
Eric

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:32:14 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:



i

But the EPA is not doing all it could to get people to use better stove designs. The EPA is never going to manage to prevent people from building wood stoves. And as it is most of those home built stoves will not burn well and will emit a lot of smoke. But if the EPA did some research on wood burning and set up some way for people to purchase EPA approved plans for high efficiency wood stoves. Then people would build better stoves and there would be less pollution. In fact if people could purchase a right to build a good wood stove at a reasonable price, I think people would replace the poor designed stoves with better stoves.

So I think the EPA is on the wrong track, or at least not the best track.

Dan

They are a Government institution. You expect them to do things
efficiently and smart?

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
"Virtually all members of [radical] groups sincerely believe that
they are fighting the Establishment. In reality they are an indespensible ally
of the Establishment in fastening Socialism on all of us.
The naive radicals think that under Socialism the "people" will run everything.
Actually, it will be a clique of Insiders in total control, consolidating and
controlling all wealth. That is why these schoolboy Lenins and teenage Trotskys
are allowed to roam free and are practically never arrested or prosecuted.
They are protected. If the Establishment wanted the revolutionaries stopped,
how long do you think they would be tolerated?

Leon Trotsky

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 2014-02-09, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:32:14 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:



i

But the EPA is not doing all it could to get people to use better stove designs. The EPA is never going to manage to prevent people from building wood stoves. And as it is most of those home built stoves will not burn well and will emit a lot of smoke. But if the EPA did some research on wood burning and set up some way for people to purchase EPA approved plans for high efficiency wood stoves. Then people would build better stoves and there would be less pollution. In fact if people could purchase a right to build a good wood stove at a reasonable price, I think people would replace the poor designed stoves with better stoves.

So I think the EPA is on the wrong track, or at least not the best track.

Dan

They are a Government institution. You expect them to do things
efficiently and smart?

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What happened to your municipality demanding that you clean up
your yard? Did they leave you alone?

i

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 10:06:38 PM UTC-5, Gunner Asch wrote:

They are a Government institution. You expect them to do things

efficiently and smart?



ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Some government institutions are better than others. I have known some government engineers that were smart and effective, and others that just filled a slot. And then there were a few that made things worse.

And some government institutions are reasonably efficient. I was in the Navy and had a good deal of interaction with the navy after I was out. And while they were not perfect, they were not terrible. The Navy missile program had a lot to do with establishing the GPS system. And DARPA has sponsored some good things. Most CNC programs are extensions of DARPA research.

When I was building houses , the FHA and the Forest Products Labs had some good publications that I used. But I am not impressed with what the EPA has done as far as Wood Stoves. My impression is that they established some standards , but did very little as far as research on improving wood stoves.

Dan

I can see the compost boxes in place of a toilet. And the
dryers outside - sun - so it stinks until spring... - and then
down to the boilers for heat and burn the Bio-Fuel. :-)

But then that might be the group across the way that the EPA
busts for the noxious smell.

I can see it - fines for the Dept of Ag!

Martin :-)

On 2/8/2014 9:06 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:32:14 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:



i

But the EPA is not doing all it could to get people to use better stove designs. The EPA is never going to manage to prevent people from building wood stoves. And as it is most of those home built stoves will not burn well and will emit a lot of smoke. But if the EPA did some research on wood burning and set up some way for people to purchase EPA approved plans for high efficiency wood stoves. Then people would build better stoves and there would be less pollution. In fact if people could purchase a right to build a good wood stove at a reasonable price, I think people would replace the poor designed stoves with better stoves.

So I think the EPA is on the wrong track, or at least not the best track.

Dan

They are a Government institution. You expect them to do things
efficiently and smart?

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
"Virtually all members of [radical] groups sincerely believe that
they are fighting the Establishment. In reality they are an indespensible ally
of the Establishment in fastening Socialism on all of us.
The naive radicals think that under Socialism the "people" will run everything.
Actually, it will be a clique of Insiders in total control, consolidating and
controlling all wealth. That is why these schoolboy Lenins and teenage Trotskys
are allowed to roam free and are practically never arrested or prosecuted.
They are protected. If the Establishment wanted the revolutionaries stopped,
how long do you think they would be tolerated?

Leon Trotsky

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Actually the one I bought years ago was a double burn in the box
where above the top plate and the real top plate was another section
that re-burned the gasses coming up. Then there was an afterburner that
we switched in once up and running hot. Didn't want to fill the small
holes of the hot 'filter' that was red hot before we switched in the
flow of hot gasses. That was in full effect with an EPA seal for
resale. Without the seal the unit would have to been taken out and at
least a Silver grade label affixed. Mine was gold.

The state was California. Northern and coastal - no EPA requirements on
the Gasoline hoses. But after someone complained, ours (county wide)
were put to the high volume snorkel.

My dad got the EPA to help him - after his trees were being killed
by the local concrete plant that moved in next door. Dad had 20+ acres
of hardwood with a house and grass feed/ bale machine quality field
that had a small orchard. EPA had the guy put on filters and catches
so the fine dust from cement and grit machines would not coat the trees
with a layer of gray.

Martin

On 2/8/2014 9:57 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 10:06:38 PM UTC-5, Gunner Asch wrote:

They are a Government institution. You expect them to do things

efficiently and smart?



ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Some government institutions are better than others. I have known some government engineers that were smart and effective, and others that just filled a slot. And then there were a few that made things worse.

And some government institutions are reasonably efficient. I was in the Navy and had a good deal of interaction with the navy after I was out. And while they were not perfect, they were not terrible. The Navy missile program had a lot to do with establishing the GPS system. And DARPA has sponsored some good things. Most CNC programs are extensions of DARPA research.

When I was building houses , the FHA and the Forest Products Labs had some good publications that I used. But I am not impressed with what the EPA has done as far as Wood Stoves. My impression is that they established some standards , but did very little as far as research on improving wood stoves.

Dan

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 21:47:54 -0600, Ignoramus20509
wrote:

On 2014-02-09, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:32:14 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:



i

But the EPA is not doing all it could to get people to use better stove designs. The EPA is never going to manage to prevent people from building wood stoves. And as it is most of those home built stoves will not burn well and will emit a lot of smoke. But if the EPA did some research on wood burning and set up some way for people to purchase EPA approved plans for high efficiency wood stoves. Then people would build better stoves and there would be less pollution. In fact if people could purchase a right to build a good wood stove at a reasonable price, I think people would replace the poor designed stoves with better stoves.

So I think the EPA is on the wrong track, or at least not the best track.

Dan

They are a Government institution. You expect them to do things
efficiently and smart?

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What happened to your municipality demanding that you clean up
your yard? Did they leave you alone?

i

So far its up in the air. Now I have sailboats out front...Im waiting
for feedback on them.

Gunner

--
"Virtually all members of [radical] groups sincerely believe that
they are fighting the Establishment. In reality they are an indespensible ally
of the Establishment in fastening Socialism on all of us.
The naive radicals think that under Socialism the "people" will run everything.
Actually, it will be a clique of Insiders in total control, consolidating and
controlling all wealth. That is why these schoolboy Lenins and teenage Trotskys
are allowed to roam free and are practically never arrested or prosecuted.
They are protected. If the Establishment wanted the revolutionaries stopped,
how long do you think they would be tolerated?



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 10:06:38 PM UTC-5, Gunner Asch wrote:

They are a Government institution. You expect them to do things

efficiently and smart?



ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Some government institutions are better than others. I have known some government engineers that were smart and effective, and others that just filled a slot. And then there were a few that made things worse.

And some government institutions are reasonably efficient. I was in the Navy and had a good deal of interaction with the navy after I was out. And while they were not perfect, they were not terrible. The Navy missile program had a lot to do with establishing the GPS system. And DARPA has sponsored some good things. Most CNC programs are extensions of DARPA research.

When I was building houses , the FHA and the Forest Products Labs had some good publications that I used. But I am not impressed with what the EPA has done as far as Wood Stoves. My impression is that they established some standards , but did very little as far as research on improving wood stoves.

Dan


The navy had a gps system in place in the mid 60's The thing they did
not have is a light weight mini computer to interpet the data. The data
from the satalite was printed out on paper tape and brought back to the
lab. to determine the positon of the ship. The data was the location of
the listening devices set in the ocean to hear the prop noises of the
ships. Columbia University / Lamont labs was installing these devices
using marine research vessels they operated.

John

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"Larry wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:45:30 -0600, Ignoramus18213
wrote:

On 2014-02-06, Larry wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:04:35 -0800, wrote:

SNIP
Burning
fossil fuels releases carbon into the environment, and energy too,
that was sequestered thousands or millions of years ago. Burning
vegetable matter and releasing CO2 at a rate slower than it absorbs as
it grows does not add to the net carbon in the air or the heat of the
planet. But unless burned in a proper power plant with scrubbers that
remove everything except CO2, vegetable matter burning can and does
contribute all sorts of particulates and other bad stuff to the air.

Who brainwashed you to think along this line? (Sorry, but that's the
way I see it.)

I'm thinking we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
If I only burn plants that growing now then I'm not adding to the
total carbon in the environment. But if I burn fossil fuels then I am
adding to the carbon in the environment. The environment being the
surface of the earth where everything lives. Or am I wrong. And if so
please point out where I'm making a misteak.

The steak is missing where you think putting pollution into the air
where is WAS on the ground is OK while taking it from under the ground
is not OK. It's the same to me. Cutting down a tree removes if from
taking CO2 from the air and producing oxygen. Then you want to burn
it, on top of that?

So, using a fuel (wood) which is four hundred times more polluting
than another (propane/natgas), while being -aware- of that difference,
seems downright irresponsible. That's where we differ. I don't see
folks who do this as having any kind of moral high ground at all.

Growing trees to compensate for our carbon footprint is fine with me,
but reducing the amount of our pollution seems to be the best bet yet.
I've been an environmentalist since 1969, but refuse to call myself
that any more, given the total ecoterrorist makeup of most enviros
nowadays. Crikey, what a mess.

The cut down tree will be replaced with another tree, which will
absorb carbon when growing.

It will take 15-100 years for the new tree to replace the CO2-sucking
capabilities of its predecessor. Yes, plant trees, but don't think
that a sapling is anything like its senior citizen tree when it comes
to cleaning air and producing oxygen.


Just yesterday you were saying it was better to just burn propane....


And the EPA wants to take the last ten-billionth of a percent of
something instead of stopping things which are putting out tens of
percents of those ghastly greenhouse gases. Go figure. Me? I take
the cuts where they matter most. Like swapping from coal to nuclear
power. INSTANT (what, 50%?) decrease in global greenhouse emissions
and a metric ****load less heat produced, too.

Pardon my tangent there. I was pointing out the silly things which
they're outlawed in industry for the past several decades while not
even addressing the things which would make real change happen in
lowering the overall national pollution.


Are you drunk? The above makes no sense whatsoever.....


With stoves, EPA is concerned not with carbon emissions, but with fine
particulate emissions (smoke), which are bad for your neighbors'
health. This fine particulates is what causes the polluted air horrors
in China.

Yes, I feel it's time to address the wood smoke pollution. Absolutely.
I had trouble breathing today on the trip to my mailbox. I was out of
breath and feeling green when I completed the 90 steps due to the leaf
burning and woodstoves combined with this inversion layer. Ick!


Of course...

--but the Surgeon General was wrong in putting warning lables on cigarettes
back in 1966, correct?

Once I understood what it was all about, it made complete sense to me
and I do not think that EPA is on a very wrong track. What it wants is
stove designs that burn better and emit less smoke.

Overall, the EPA is on an extremely bad track. It will continue to

Obviously, you have a chrystal ball...appreciate tell me who's going to win
next years world series, so that I can "bank on it"

do very little for the environment while running companies out of
business and

Name even a single company that was "run out of business by the EPA" and
whose market share wasn't immediately gobbled up by some other company that
takes the EPA regulations a little more seriously.

The last lead smelter in the US has been shut down. No more lead
smelted in the US.


John

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:07:52 -0500, John
wrote:

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"Larry wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:45:30 -0600, Ignoramus18213
wrote:

On 2014-02-06, Larry wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:04:35 -0800, wrote:

SNIP
Burning
fossil fuels releases carbon into the environment, and energy too,
that was sequestered thousands or millions of years ago. Burning
vegetable matter and releasing CO2 at a rate slower than it absorbs as
it grows does not add to the net carbon in the air or the heat of the
planet. But unless burned in a proper power plant with scrubbers that
remove everything except CO2, vegetable matter burning can and does
contribute all sorts of particulates and other bad stuff to the air.

Who brainwashed you to think along this line? (Sorry, but that's the
way I see it.)

I'm thinking we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
If I only burn plants that growing now then I'm not adding to the
total carbon in the environment. But if I burn fossil fuels then I am
adding to the carbon in the environment. The environment being the
surface of the earth where everything lives. Or am I wrong. And if so
please point out where I'm making a misteak.

The steak is missing where you think putting pollution into the air
where is WAS on the ground is OK while taking it from under the ground
is not OK. It's the same to me. Cutting down a tree removes if from
taking CO2 from the air and producing oxygen. Then you want to burn
it, on top of that?

So, using a fuel (wood) which is four hundred times more polluting
than another (propane/natgas), while being -aware- of that difference,
seems downright irresponsible. That's where we differ. I don't see
folks who do this as having any kind of moral high ground at all.

Growing trees to compensate for our carbon footprint is fine with me,
but reducing the amount of our pollution seems to be the best bet yet.
I've been an environmentalist since 1969, but refuse to call myself
that any more, given the total ecoterrorist makeup of most enviros
nowadays. Crikey, what a mess.

The cut down tree will be replaced with another tree, which will
absorb carbon when growing.

It will take 15-100 years for the new tree to replace the CO2-sucking
capabilities of its predecessor. Yes, plant trees, but don't think
that a sapling is anything like its senior citizen tree when it comes
to cleaning air and producing oxygen.


Just yesterday you were saying it was better to just burn propane....


And the EPA wants to take the last ten-billionth of a percent of
something instead of stopping things which are putting out tens of
percents of those ghastly greenhouse gases. Go figure. Me? I take
the cuts where they matter most. Like swapping from coal to nuclear
power. INSTANT (what, 50%?) decrease in global greenhouse emissions
and a metric ****load less heat produced, too.

Pardon my tangent there. I was pointing out the silly things which
they're outlawed in industry for the past several decades while not
even addressing the things which would make real change happen in
lowering the overall national pollution.


Are you drunk? The above makes no sense whatsoever.....


With stoves, EPA is concerned not with carbon emissions, but with fine
particulate emissions (smoke), which are bad for your neighbors'
health. This fine particulates is what causes the polluted air horrors
in China.

Yes, I feel it's time to address the wood smoke pollution. Absolutely.
I had trouble breathing today on the trip to my mailbox. I was out of
breath and feeling green when I completed the 90 steps due to the leaf
burning and woodstoves combined with this inversion layer. Ick!


Of course...

--but the Surgeon General was wrong in putting warning lables on cigarettes
back in 1966, correct?

Once I understood what it was all about, it made complete sense to me
and I do not think that EPA is on a very wrong track. What it wants is
stove designs that burn better and emit less smoke.

Overall, the EPA is on an extremely bad track. It will continue to

Obviously, you have a chrystal ball...appreciate tell me who's going to win
next years world series, so that I can "bank on it"

do very little for the environment while running companies out of
business and

Name even a single company that was "run out of business by the EPA" and
whose market share wasn't immediately gobbled up by some other company that
takes the EPA regulations a little more seriously.

The last lead smelter in the US has been shut down. No more lead
smelted in the US.


John


Point..set and match.

John wins once again over ****Machinist


--
"Virtually all members of [radical] groups sincerely believe that
they are fighting the Establishment. In reality they are an indespensible ally
of the Establishment in fastening Socialism on all of us.
The naive radicals think that under Socialism the "people" will run everything.
Actually, it will be a clique of Insiders in total control, consolidating and
controlling all wealth. That is why these schoolboy Lenins and teenage Trotskys
are allowed to roam free and are practically never arrested or prosecuted.
They are protected. If the Establishment wanted the revolutionaries stopped,
how long do you think they would be tolerated?



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

"John" wrote in message
...
PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"Larry wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:45:30 -0600, Ignoramus18213
wrote:

On 2014-02-06, Larry wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:04:35 -0800, wrote:

SNIP
Burning
fossil fuels releases carbon into the environment, and energy too,
that was sequestered thousands or millions of years ago. Burning
vegetable matter and releasing CO2 at a rate slower than it absorbs
as
it grows does not add to the net carbon in the air or the heat of
the
planet. But unless burned in a proper power plant with scrubbers
that
remove everything except CO2, vegetable matter burning can and does
contribute all sorts of particulates and other bad stuff to the
air.

Who brainwashed you to think along this line? (Sorry, but that's
the
way I see it.)

I'm thinking we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
If I only burn plants that growing now then I'm not adding to the
total carbon in the environment. But if I burn fossil fuels then I
am
adding to the carbon in the environment. The environment being the
surface of the earth where everything lives. Or am I wrong. And if so
please point out where I'm making a misteak.

The steak is missing where you think putting pollution into the air
where is WAS on the ground is OK while taking it from under the ground
is not OK. It's the same to me. Cutting down a tree removes if from
taking CO2 from the air and producing oxygen. Then you want to burn
it, on top of that?

So, using a fuel (wood) which is four hundred times more polluting
than another (propane/natgas), while being -aware- of that difference,
seems downright irresponsible. That's where we differ. I don't see
folks who do this as having any kind of moral high ground at all.

Growing trees to compensate for our carbon footprint is fine with me,
but reducing the amount of our pollution seems to be the best bet yet.
I've been an environmentalist since 1969, but refuse to call myself
that any more, given the total ecoterrorist makeup of most enviros
nowadays. Crikey, what a mess.

The cut down tree will be replaced with another tree, which will
absorb carbon when growing.

It will take 15-100 years for the new tree to replace the CO2-sucking
capabilities of its predecessor. Yes, plant trees, but don't think
that a sapling is anything like its senior citizen tree when it comes
to cleaning air and producing oxygen.


Just yesterday you were saying it was better to just burn propane....


And the EPA wants to take the last ten-billionth of a percent of
something instead of stopping things which are putting out tens of
percents of those ghastly greenhouse gases. Go figure. Me? I take
the cuts where they matter most. Like swapping from coal to nuclear
power. INSTANT (what, 50%?) decrease in global greenhouse emissions
and a metric ****load less heat produced, too.

Pardon my tangent there. I was pointing out the silly things which
they're outlawed in industry for the past several decades while not
even addressing the things which would make real change happen in
lowering the overall national pollution.


Are you drunk? The above makes no sense whatsoever.....


With stoves, EPA is concerned not with carbon emissions, but with fine
particulate emissions (smoke), which are bad for your neighbors'
health. This fine particulates is what causes the polluted air horrors
in China.

Yes, I feel it's time to address the wood smoke pollution. Absolutely.
I had trouble breathing today on the trip to my mailbox. I was out of
breath and feeling green when I completed the 90 steps due to the leaf
burning and woodstoves combined with this inversion layer. Ick!


Of course...

--but the Surgeon General was wrong in putting warning lables on
cigarettes
back in 1966, correct?

Once I understood what it was all about, it made complete sense to me
and I do not think that EPA is on a very wrong track. What it wants is
stove designs that burn better and emit less smoke.

Overall, the EPA is on an extremely bad track. It will continue to

Obviously, you have a chrystal ball...appreciate tell me who's going to
win
next years world series, so that I can "bank on it"

do very little for the environment while running companies out of
business and

Name even a single company that was "run out of business by the EPA" and
whose market share wasn't immediately gobbled up by some other company
that
takes the EPA regulations a little more seriously.

The last lead smelter in the US has been shut down.

Hogwash, 97% of lead smelting in the US uses recycled lead as the feedstock;
these smelters are still very much open for business

No more lead smelted in the US.

No, no more PRIMARY lead smelting, an activity which amounted to only 3% of
lead production in the first place and which (as I said before) no doubt
will resume if and when there develops sufficient demand.

http://www.infomine.com/investment/m...s/lead/1-year/

"the small increase in demand should be met by existing sources or possibly
by a new U.S. smelter using already existing technology that is capable of
meeting the new air quality standards"

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...d-smelter.aspx