On-topic: More BS in the Granola State

Doesn't this mean the source could be something other than perchlorates like pool clorine which in suspension of a complex compound such as water with lots of minor contaminants could test as perclorates?

LOTS of pool clorine is dumped every day.

Jerry

Now that you mention it, yes. :)

Jerry

Robert Galejs wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@ll.mit.edu:

My bad.

len.

What a giant crock of S@#$! Anybody that tells you that they can correlate the two is so far off the deep end of reality that you should be very leary of them being around your family. ;-) There is NO WAY that a causal relationship can be proven between air quality regulations and health care costs. Bogus...Bogus....Bogus...

If you believe Wilson, I have a large used Gold-colored bridge to sell you. Do you really think that they would send a high profile ambassador and his wife on an important assignment like trying to verify the sale of yellow cake in Niger? That would be like sending the pope on an undercover drug buy. Get real!

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

You remind me of Rush Limbaugh. He got on his radio show one day and proceeded to "prove" that CFCs could not possibly be causing the hole in the ozone. He pointed out that the number of molecules of ozone being destroyed were far in excess of the number of molecules of CFCs, and that all the CFCs would be used up in the chemical reaction.

It's too bad the CFCs aren't used in the ozone-destroying reaction. They are a catalyst, apparently a term good old Rush missed when he fell asleep in chem class in high school.

Demonstrating the effect of air pollution on human health is quite easy. Demonstrating the reduction in that effect, based on air pollution regulations, is also quite easy. The methodology in the paper is quite standard, if you bothered to read it. I bet you didn't. I did.

Bush's own OMB was the one that came up with the numbers. I suppose you want to call the Bush White House a bunch of tree huggers?

Zooty

I guess that you must have slept through chemistry class as well. CFCs are destroyed in the upper atmosphere where they release chlorine. If they weren't destroyed, NO chlorine would be released and NO decomposition of O3 would be attributable to CFCs. It is the chlorine that is the catalyst. Once CFCs decompose, they're gone.

UV decomposes CFCs releasing Cl Cl + O3 ==> ClO + O2

ClO + O ==> Cl + O2

------------------

O3 + O ===> 2O2

Have you ever read the studies that demonstrated increased green plant growth due to increase in O3 levels? Or the fact that thousands of drinking water facilities routinely ozonate their water?

Junk science is junk science; it doesn't matter whose administration sponsored it. I wonder if it was the same clowns that keep claiming that radon is the #2 cause of lung cancer. They took data from miners exposed to levels of radon orders of magnitudes higher than those found in homes over decades and tried to extrapolate the data to low dosages. It's junk science. Effects of toxins on the human body aren't infinitely scalable. If the human body couldn't thwart the effects of carcinogens, then mankind would have become extinct almost immediately as he stepped into the sunlight due to UV exposure.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Is this thread the "clash of the political scientists"?

So let's launch some Ozone by rocket and disperse it and see what effect that has.

Nope, just simplified things for you. I didn't think you could handle the whole thing.

You have no clue, do you?

Zooty

Bushies? That style will certainly help you convince others of your points.

Not.

Reminds me of a cartoon I had in my office a LONG time ago:

1) Rats that smoke 20000 marijauna cigarettes a day suffer brain damage. 2) Rats that drink 10000 cans of saccarine sweetenned cola a day develop cancer. 3) Rats that eat 5 tons of swiss cheese a day explode.

The caption I added under neath was:

"Scientists cause cancer in lab rats"

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Actually, the cancer researchers have probably by now developed special strains of lab rats that automatically get cancer without any special acts to produce it... this is probably a great convenience for the scientists, who can then proceed to study (for example) anti-tumor medication without having to go to the trouble of inducing the rats to develop the tumors in the first place. (I'm not sure what the rats think of it, though...)

-dave w

Nice try. Bachelor's in Chemistry - Rutgers University 1978 currently a Research Manager for a Fortune 100 company. I make my living doing chemistry, you?

That's my line. You really should try some independent thought some time, you might just welcome the change. ;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Double major, BA in chemistry and biology, 1978, followed by masters in biochemical engineering, 1983.

I will admit I got out of engineering once I had enough money and it stopped being fun. Since then, I've done whatever I felt like doing. Last two jobs have been volunteer work.

Thanks for reminding me how lucky I've been. If I hadn't been as smart, I might still be working for a living.

Zooty.

Oh, come on. You have to see the humor in the situation. The Bush administration has been pushing for loosening of air pollution controls based on economic considerations, and then they themselves find out that economically, it's really a bad idea.

"For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne petar" -- Shakespeare, Hamlet III iv.

It puts them in a very difficult position, even worse than that PR disaster where they suggested increasing the acceptable cyanide levels in the water.

I wound up working at Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. Two friends were called up to work in New York, but not at Ground Zero. They were told the air was safe to breathe by the EPA and no precautions needed to be taken.

Both now have serious lung problems; one had to quit work. Since they were volunteers, it's not a work-related injury. Great thanks from the Federal government for being willing to help in a national crisis.

It turns out the EPA suspected the air wasn't safe, but the Bush administration deleted all references to the danger from the EPA release.

Zooty

Were you equally offended when folks referred to associates of the previous president as "Clintonites"?

-dave w

Neither one "offend" me. What I am saying is that both are noise which distract from the messenger's point.

If you are trying to convince me of something, referring to the opposing side in a derogatory style will not have the desired effect.

Almost...

There was a study a number of years ago where rats were injected with sterile water (pure deionized H2O) and a significant number of them got cancer vs. a control group.

The conclusion was that the act of sticking them with the hypodermic needle caused tumors.

"Injecting rats with lead causes 100% mortality, when the injection is performed with a 9mm pistol."

mj

Don't you hate it when people ask rhetorical questions?

But what would the world be like if there were no rhetorical questions?