Prev: looking for electronics help in Seattle area
Next: idiots messing with systems they don't understand
From: Robert Baer on 6 Jun 2010 03:15
Regarding title of this thread, one can thank Obama for killing
business contract law...Government Motors (GM) for one..
GM bond holders are not exactly happy..
From: Martin Brown on 6 Jun 2010 08:44
On 05/06/2010 16:17, JosephKK wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:05:27 +0100, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 28/05/2010 01:15, dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On May 27, 4:41 am, Martin Brown<|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk>
>>> wrote:

>>>> Using dispersants is an example of being seen to be doing something.
>>>
>>> The dispersant is, the PBS expert said, soap. The environmentalist
>>
>> That puts the "PBS expert" opinion into question immediately. It is not
>> by any normal chemical definition soap - soaps are alkaline salts of
>> fatty acids (traditionally by reacting caustic lye and animal fat).
>
> Most likely PB down things by not using the more inclusive and more
> accurate word detergent. Lots of people think dish soap or laundry soap
> instead of detergent though there is usually no soaps in the store
> products.

Dumbing down to dumber than dumb then.
>>
>> Dispersants are typically surfactants in the sulphonated olefin class
>> like very strong aggressive versions of washing up liquid detergent in a
>> solvent. See for example the MSDS of the Nalco Corexit muck they are
>> using at present. And it seems to have been chosen on grounds of bulk
>> availability rather the suitability for the task.
>>
>> http://cleancaribbean.org/userfiles/Master%20EC9527A%20MSDS.pdf
>> http://cleancaribbean.org/userfiles/Master%20EC9500A%20MSDS.pdf
>
> And waiting for more of something that may work better is a better
> decision how?

Doing nothing at all may actually be preferable to adding dispersant. It
is more finely balanced and the gains tend to be largely cosmetic.
>>
>> The toxic component of the common weedkiller based on glyphosate is not
>> the active ingredient but the surfactant to wet out the leaves.
>
> So a glyphosphate is not the active ingredient in Roundup?
> http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/pdf/labels_msds/roundup_pro_msds.pdf

The thing that kills green plants (and malaria parasites) is virtually
harmless to humans and other mammals. The operatives so dumb as to eat
their lunch drenched in concentrate were poisoned by the wetting agents.
It is PEOA that causes the animal toxicity not the glyphosate.

>> If they were using something slightly more benign like Dispersit then I
>> would not have a problem.
>>
>> http://www.uspoly.com/disspec.html
>
> Proper MSDS here:
> http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Polychem_MSDS_CP1927.pdf

It is still marginally more benign than the stuff in use.

> Both products contain seriously automotive antifreeze like solvent
> components. Dispersit is almost only that.

You have to have a common solvent. Oil and water do not mix.

>> It seems BP have also lied about the extent of the oil leak. Independent
>> experts are putting it at more like 30,000 barrels a day and some give a
>> figure nearly 3x higher still. Either way it is now the largest US oil
>> spill in history. Perhaps in future oil rig inspections will be just a
>> little bit more thorough.
>
> Actually the current inspections may have done the job if rigorously
> enforced. See also Massey coal mine operations.

Quite possibly but it seems the inspection regime can be compromised by
the copious amounts of money in the oil company coffers. They use the
same methods to keep congress critters in their pockets and to subvert
the reporting of the science of climate change.

Regards,
Martin Brown
From: JosephKK on 8 Jun 2010 08:02
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 13:44:48 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 05/06/2010 16:17, JosephKK wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:05:27 +0100, Martin Brown
>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/05/2010 01:15, dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On May 27, 4:41 am, Martin Brown<|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>> Using dispersants is an example of being seen to be doing something.
>>>>
>>>> The dispersant is, the PBS expert said, soap. The environmentalist
>>>
>>> That puts the "PBS expert" opinion into question immediately. It is not
>>> by any normal chemical definition soap - soaps are alkaline salts of
>>> fatty acids (traditionally by reacting caustic lye and animal fat).
>>
>> Most likely PB down things by not using the more inclusive and more
>> accurate word detergent. Lots of people think dish soap or laundry soap
>> instead of detergent though there is usually no soaps in the store
>> products.
>
>Dumbing down to dumber than dumb then.
>>>
>>> Dispersants are typically surfactants in the sulphonated olefin class
>>> like very strong aggressive versions of washing up liquid detergent in a
>>> solvent. See for example the MSDS of the Nalco Corexit muck they are
>>> using at present. And it seems to have been chosen on grounds of bulk
>>> availability rather the suitability for the task.
>>>
>>> http://cleancaribbean.org/userfiles/Master%20EC9527A%20MSDS.pdf
>>> http://cleancaribbean.org/userfiles/Master%20EC9500A%20MSDS.pdf
>>
>> And waiting for more of something that may work better is a better
>> decision how?
>
>Doing nothing at all may actually be preferable to adding dispersant. It
>is more finely balanced and the gains tend to be largely cosmetic.

Maybe, maybe not.

>>>
>>> The toxic component of the common weedkiller based on glyphosate is not
>>> the active ingredient but the surfactant to wet out the leaves.
>>
>> So a glyphosphate is not the active ingredient in Roundup?
>> http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/pdf/labels_msds/roundup_pro_msds.pdf
>
>The thing that kills green plants (and malaria parasites) is virtually
>harmless to humans and other mammals. The operatives so dumb as to eat
>their lunch drenched in concentrate were poisoned by the wetting agents.
>It is PEOA that causes the animal toxicity not the glyphosate.

OK
>
>>> If they were using something slightly more benign like Dispersit then I
>>> would not have a problem.
>>>
>>> http://www.uspoly.com/disspec.html
>>
>> Proper MSDS here:
>> http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Polychem_MSDS_CP1927.pdf
>
>It is still marginally more benign than the stuff in use.

Is it available in the quantities desired?
>
>> Both products contain seriously automotive antifreeze like solvent
>> components. Dispersit is almost only that.
>
>You have to have a common solvent. Oil and water do not mix.

Except for some cooking uses (and then primarily for organic oils instead
of mineral oils), yes.
>
>>> It seems BP have also lied about the extent of the oil leak. Independent
>>> experts are putting it at more like 30,000 barrels a day and some give a
>>> figure nearly 3x higher still. Either way it is now the largest US oil
>>> spill in history. Perhaps in future oil rig inspections will be just a
>>> little bit more thorough.
>>
>> Actually the current inspections may have done the job if rigorously
>> enforced. See also Massey coal mine operations.
>
>Quite possibly but it seems the inspection regime can be compromised by
>the copious amounts of money in the oil company coffers.

OK. That is was my point.

>They use the
>same methods to keep congress critters in their pockets and to subvert
>the reporting of the science of climate change.

Climate change is many hundreds to thousands of years, a decade or two is
weather.
>
>Regards,
>Martin Brown
From: dagmargoodboat on 8 Jun 2010 13:52
On May 27, 2:24 am, Bitrex <bit...(a)de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> >> In 2046 nanoscale self-replicating robots were dispersed in the Gulf of
> >> Mexico to clean up an oil spill.  Unfortunately a subtle programming
> >> error caused their consumption target to be changed from "hydrocarbons"
> >> to "all carbon based substances", and within a week the world was turned
> >> to dust. :(
>
> > That's called the "grey goo" scenario.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo
>
> > More recent analysis has shown that the danger of grey goo is far less
> > likely than originally thought.[8] However, other long-term major
> > risks to society and the environment from nanotechnology have been
> > identified.[9] Drexler has made a somewhat public effort to retract
> > his grey goo hypothesis, in an effort to focus the debate on more
> > realistic threats associated with knowledge-enabled nanoterrorism and
> > other misuses.
>
> Nanoterrorism? O_o

It's a little-known threat.
From: krw on 8 Jun 2010 18:09
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:52:50 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote:

>On May 27, 2:24�am, Bitrex <bit...(a)de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>> >> In 2046 nanoscale self-replicating robots were dispersed in the Gulf of
>> >> Mexico to clean up an oil spill. �Unfortunately a subtle programming
>> >> error caused their consumption target to be changed from "hydrocarbons"
>> >> to "all carbon based substances", and within a week the world was turned
>> >> to dust. :(
>>
>> > That's called the "grey goo" scenario.
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo
>>
>> > More recent analysis has shown that the danger of grey goo is far less
>> > likely than originally thought.[8] However, other long-term major
>> > risks to society and the environment from nanotechnology have been
>> > identified.[9] Drexler has made a somewhat public effort to retract
>> > his grey goo hypothesis, in an effort to focus the debate on more
>> > realistic threats associated with knowledge-enabled nanoterrorism and
>> > other misuses.
>>
>> Nanoterrorism? O_o
>
>It's a little-known threat.

Or perhaps a little, known threat.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: looking for electronics help in Seattle area
Next: idiots messing with systems they don't understand