Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 7 Nov 2006 18:30 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >krw wrote: > >> >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >> >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > In addition, people burn the wood that is laced with arsenic. > >> >> > > >> >> > What kind of wood is laced with arsenic ? > >> >> > >> >> CCA (chromated copper arsenic) pressure treated lumber normally > >> >> used for ground contact, decks and such. Anyone caught burning it > >> >> should be forced to emigrate to Europe. > >> > > >> >It wouldn't be allowed here. > >> > >> --- > >> Got some laws you can cite? > > > > I've never heard of such a treatment here anyway. We avoid laying timber > > on (wet) ground anyway for obvious reasons. > > There are numerous laws regarding air pollution from open fires though. > Clean Air act was the biggie but the Environmental Agency has dozens more. > Air pollution management (and the attendant controls and legal requirements > etc) is an industry unto itself. Didn't the UK pioneer Clean Air legislation ? Graham
From: T Wake on 7 Nov 2006 18:36 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45511701.FB5466C9(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > John Fields wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >krw wrote: >> >> >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > In addition, people burn the wood that is laced with arsenic. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > What kind of wood is laced with arsenic ? >> >> >> >> >> >> CCA (chromated copper arsenic) pressure treated lumber normally >> >> >> used for ground contact, decks and such. Anyone caught burning it >> >> >> should be forced to emigrate to Europe. >> >> > >> >> >It wouldn't be allowed here. >> >> >> >> --- >> >> Got some laws you can cite? >> > >> > I've never heard of such a treatment here anyway. We avoid laying >> > timber >> > on (wet) ground anyway for obvious reasons. >> >> There are numerous laws regarding air pollution from open fires though. >> Clean Air act was the biggie but the Environmental Agency has dozens >> more. >> Air pollution management (and the attendant controls and legal >> requirements >> etc) is an industry unto itself. > > Didn't the UK pioneer Clean Air legislation ? I seem to recall that being the case :-) I Looking through my saddo bookshelf I have a copy of the Pollution Handbook 2005 (published by the NSCA - National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection), which while it weighs in at 350 pages of A4 provides a quick scan. It seems the main legislation dealing with this would be the Prescribed Processes & Substances Regulations 1991 with additional legislation regarding the combustion of noxious substances governed under the Environment Act 1995 (which also gives powers of entry to a premises believed to be burning noxious substances) and the Clean Air Act 1993. An easier to use (and sometimes available in PDF format) reference is the Dictionary of Environmental Science and Technology by Andrew Porteous. This also outlines the relevant legislation for both the combustion of wood and potentially toxic substances. Hope this helps :-)
From: unsettled on 7 Nov 2006 19:45 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:a9ab8$4550d247$4fe756c$7863(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:2991e$4550b10a$49ecf0b$7036(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >>>>>news:MPG.1fba72a27da2d087989ab3(a)news.individual.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <4550A28F.B40C659F(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>>rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In addition, people burn the wood that is laced with arsenic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What kind of wood is laced with arsenic ? >>>>>> >>>>>>CCA (chromated copper arsenic) pressure treated lumber normally >>>>>>used for ground contact, decks and such. Anyone caught burning it >>>>>>should be forced to emigrate to Europe. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Production of this was made illegal in 2004 (I think, maybe earlier), >>>>>but for quite a few months thereafter, they were selling off existing >>>>>stocks. >>>>> >>>>>Anyone who burns lumber (any kind) for heat either has more money than >>>>>sense, or has absolutely no money and is in survival mode. >>>> >>>>Even in healthy forests trees die out for a variety >>>>of reasons. Retired and with a bad back I can't >>>>handle the stuff, so I give it away to folks who >>>>want it. Your ideas on who uses wood and why is >>>>all wet. >>> >>> >>>I didn't say "wood", I said "lumber". Do you know the difference? >> >>Now that I live in the country the difference has >>become a matter of a few minutes of cutting. In >>my township the difference, for most living here, >>is nuance. > > > Well, unless you happen to be making CCA pressure-treated lumber, it would > be irrelevant to this conversation, wouldn't it? > > Eric Lucas > > Here's what you wrote: "Anyone who burns lumber (any kind) for heat...." which is the profound opposite of what you're arguing now.
From: unsettled on 7 Nov 2006 20:06 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45510916.CE2F3C37(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>> >>> >>>>I would put that differently. Every few years, the population gets >>>>tired >>>>of the smug and self-sanctimonious preachings of those who claim to be >>>>the >>>>arbiters of "traditional American values", and try to get our society >>>>to >>>>evolve in the direction of its citizens *thinking*, rather than >>>>reacting >>>>at a gut level to their prejudices and hatreds. And then the >>>>self-sanctimonious fear- and hate-mongers among us feel their grip on >>>>society slipping, and redouble their efforts to pander to the >>>>prejudices >>>>and basest emotions of the population--the "least common denominator", >>>>as >>>>it were. I don't expect it to stick this time either--but it's still >>>>worth trying. >>> >>>There is a strong undercurrent in the UK about "Traditional Values" - >>>often >>>trumpeted by rightwing elements but not always. >>> >>>I don't know much about what is American Traditional Values, but the ones >>>alluded to here in the UK are little more than myth clung to by a people >>>scared of change. If people look at the real lifestyles and behaviour of >>>people in the golden age they allude to it would shock them rigid. Sadly, >>>they fixate on this "Traditional Value" from an imaginary age and bring >>>it >>>out with moral force on a regular basis. (A UK newspaper capitalises on >>>this >>>in its advertisements). >>> >>>Traditional Values generally equate to prejudice, fanciful thinking, >>>hatred >>>and oppression. Nothing Western or Democratic about that. >> >>Don't forget the child prostitution. > > > Amongst other things. It amazes me how any one could want to go back to > "Traditional Values..." > > Give me the dark ages any day compared to that! Funny little man. Next time you're in court pay attention to the traditional values in play. There's no "going back" to them since, despite your denial, in many ways we're living them.
From: unsettled on 7 Nov 2006 20:18
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:6ead5$4550d2a7$4fe756c$7863(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:e6db6$4550b23f$49ecf0b$7151(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:21f8a$4550ac39$49ecf0b$7036(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:87663$455065eb$4fe724c$5663(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In article <92d5d$45506124$4fe724c$5573(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>>>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>[....] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>The extremists I think we really need to stop appeasing are the >>>>>>>>>>>Religious Right and the Republicans who they are currently leading >>>>>>>>>>>around by the nose. Tomorrow's our chance. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Perhaps you're talking about the people who have and >>>>>>>>>>maintain taditional American values. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>What traditional American values would these be? There never was a >>>>>>>>>golden age. It is a myth we all like to belive but if you look at >>>>>>>>>the past you find the horrors of today plus some. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You know, the >>>>>>>>>>folks who made America great in the first place! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Read up on Franklin. You will find that he and most of the others >>>>>>>>>who made America great in the first place would make the religious >>>>>>>>>right blanch. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>What you've done this morning in two posts is to disclose >>>>>>>>the low esteem in which you hold people. You seem to have >>>>>>>>some idea that the base element always prevails. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Speaking for myself, not at all. I always hold out the hope that >>>>>>>people can rise above their basest instincts of hatred and fear. It's >>>>>>>just that every few years, we forget to keep a lookout for these >>>>>>>things, and they take over. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The facts are somewhat different. Each human exhibits some >>>>>>>>degree of discontinuity in how they conduct their lives. >>>>>>>>Franklin did manage to achieve some pretty significant >>>>>>>>things, especially for someone whose first calling was >>>>>>>>as a tradesman/printer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Uh...that was his point. That, and the fact that Franklin and many of >>>>>>>the others who made this country great had no use for your BS about >>>>>>>"traditional American values". >>>>>> >>>>>>It looks like you've once again purposely discounted >>>>>>the fact that most humans exhibit discontinuities. >>>>> >>>>>Not at all. I'm well aware of it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>What >>>>>>that means is he didn't always observe the values he >>>>>>generally stood for. >>>>> >>>>>What, exactly, would be your evidence that he "stood for" the same BS >>>>>values that you pomp on about? Everything I've read says he was a very >>>>>down-to-earth guy. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Your posts continue to reek of hatred for your >>>>>>fellow man. >>>>> >>>>>Not at all. I just the behavior of people that try to act better than >>>>>me and tell me how to live my life. >>>> >>>>Ahhh, now it comes out, the jealousy card. Jumping up and down >>>>with your hand in the air yelling "me too me too!" LOL >>> >>> >>>What the hell are you on about now? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Get over your own insignificance. >>> >>> >>>The only significance in which I hold myself is that I am capable of >>>choosing how to live my own life, and will not allow anyone else to do >>>that for me. To quote a wise man, "I yam what I yam." What about you? >>>The only person with a lower fact:insult ratio than you in this thread is >>>JoeBlow. >> >>Once again you have the ratio backwards. > > > Oh, come on. Even your "partner" BAH has commented on your abysmal > fact:insult ratio. You demean her mental abilities constantly and, up till now, consistently. This post of yours particularly exposes your dingenuous nature. Here's a convenient point for you to agree when you agree with nothing else from her keyboard, and you can hardly avoid taking advantage of it all the while enhancing what it was she actually wrote. Besides that, you misunderstand and misinterpret her statements in these particulars. If you understood who you're talking to, you'd have realized that BAH has an aversion to anyone agreeing with her "too much" (whatever that means.) She has an invariable history of finding fault with people who agree with her too much (again, whatever that means) so as a result you've seen her, I think involuntary, reaction. I wouldn't care to analyze that particular behavior since it is of no consequence to me, nor actually to the discussions, except for your attaching special significance to her petty little (I hope short lived) diatribe. Go ahead and revel in what you think is cleverness. You've failed to bank anything and you're on the verge of becoming the weakest remaining link in this discussion. |