Bush EPA Legalizes Widespread Perchlorate Contamination
kT
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2008/2008-10-06-01.asp
Another parting gift to corporations from the Bush EPA.
charlie...@yahoo.com
charlie...@yahoo.com
> veracity of scientific and engineering methods,
You are clueless wrt to these item. Your COTS proposal was a joke.
It might have been a good idea but the actual proposal looked like it
was written by Richard Hoagland, all hype and no substance, much like
GM. There was no use of said "scientific and engineering methods".
Just another blowhard trying to pound his chest but ends up acting
like village idiot
tadchem
The EPA is its own empire. They have done MANY things that the
Executive branch does not approve of, but is powerless to stop.
Perhaps they simply acknowledged the futility of trying to regulate
the natural processes of geology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perchlorate#Natural_formation_of_perchlorates
"In 2006 a mechanism for the formation of perchlorates was proposed
which is particularly apropos to the discovery of perchlorate at the
Mars Phoenix lander site. It was shown that soils with high
concentrations of natural salts could have some of their chloride
converted to perchlorate in the presence of sunlight and/or
ultraviolet light. The mechanism was reproduced in the lab using
chloride rich soils from Death Valley.[4]"
http://oasys2.confex.com/acs/231nm/techprogram/P945888.HTM
There is plenty of blame to be laid at the doorstep of the White
House, but this is not there.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
charlie...@yahoo.com
> charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> veracity of scientific and engineering methods,
>
> > You are clueless
>
>
> Feel free to give us a link to ANYTHING you have written.
Any of my posts. They are more coherent than the POS you claim is a
proposal
charlie...@yahoo.com
> charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 9:45 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> >> charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> veracity of scientific and engineering methods,
> >>> You are clueless
> >> You are entitled to your opinion.
>
> >> Feel free to give us a link to ANYTHING you have written.
>
> > Any of my posts.
>
> history. You've never written anything longer than a paragraph.
>
No, I have written more else where, just that what I have written on
usenet is better than your POS COTS proposal
charlie...@yahoo.com
>
> As usual, with rational people like myself, we are always interested in
> evidence. Just as soon as you are willing to share your work, do let us
> know, we'll be waiting patiently. We're always willing to critique it.
>
Rational? Far from it. Your rants are proof of this.
Critique it? You are not competent enough to even understand it.
Proof is your COTS proposal. You didn't even follow the simple
instructions for submitting the proposal and it was shitcanned right
away
kT
> On Oct 8, 9:51 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
>> As usual, with rational people like myself, we are always interested in
>> evidence. Just as soon as you are willing to share your work, do let us
>> know, we'll be waiting patiently. We're always willing to critique it.
>>
>
> Rational? Far from it. Your rants are proof of this.
You are the one making the death threats, not I.
Quoting Charlie "KT will get it in the end". Guess what, charlie, I get
it. You're a fascist. I'm a published physicist with a major chemistry
result under my belt. I've written two white papers in the past year.
Anytime you've got a link, post it. We'll be waiting.
> Critique it? You are not competent enough to even understand it.
That's for sure.
> Proof is your COTS proposal.
Proof is a mathematical theorem. I'm guessing you never proved one.
> You didn't even follow the simple
> instructions for submitting the proposal and it was shitcanned right
> away
No they didn't, I got a complete report back on it.
There were no administrative problems with the proposal.
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
> Just an asshole with a twisted agenda
Better to be an asshole as that has a function;
whereas, there little need for know nothings
except maybe as goons and prison camp "screws."
kT
> On Oct 6, 6:48 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Just an asshole with a twisted agenda
> Better to be an asshole as that has a function;
Consider it ... a test of democracy.
> whereas, there little need for know nothings
> except maybe as goons and prison camp "screws."
So sad.
charlie...@yahoo.com
> You are the one making the death threats, not I.
> Quoting Charlie "KT will get it in the end". Guess what, charlie, I get
> it.
That isn't a death threat, just a prediction
>I'm a published physicist with a major chemistry
> result under my belt. I've written two white papers in the past year.
No, you haven't published anything that was peer reviewed or in
respected journal . Therefore, you aren't "published"
White papers are dime a dozen and don't mean squat. Especially coming
from you.
> > Critique it? You are not competent enough to even understand it.
> That's for sure.
Glad we understand that you aren't competent enough to critique
anything I do.
> > Proof is your COTS proposal.
> Proof is a mathematical theorem. I'm guessing you never proved one.
You haven't proved any mathematical theorem
Your proposal didn't have any calculations or proofs. In fact, your
proposal didn't have drawing or a design of a launch vehicle.
> > You didn't even follow the simple
> > instructions for submitting the proposal and it was shitcanned right
> > away
>
> No they didn't, I got a complete report back on it.
>
> There were no administrative problems with the proposal.
Yes, there were. It didn't meet the requirements and was shitcanned
right away. The report was done after the fact
charlie...@yahoo.com
> > Glad we understand that you aren't competent enough to critique
> > anything I do.
>
> You haven't done anything. I see possibly a single paper on optics.
>
> You are a corporate hack, Charlie.
>
No, I am not. You have no clue
> > Your proposal didn't have any calculations or proofs.
>
> It included an Orbiter addon.
That is not sufficient for proof because there was no real design to
analysis (see below)
> > In fact, your
> > proposal didn't have drawing or a design of a launch vehicle.
>
> It included a 3D model.
That is only a shell and not based on reality or a real design
>
> >>> You didn't even follow the simple
> >>> instructions for submitting the proposal
>
> I followed all the instructions.
>
> >> No they didn't, I got a complete report back on it.
> >> There were no administrative problems with the proposal.
> > Yes, there were.
>
> Point them out then.
No valid business plan
> > It didn't meet the requirements and was shitcanned
> > right away. The report was done after the fact
>
> Why would they do a report if the proposal wasn't valid?
Because of due diligence.
Only a fool would think I would use my real name when dealing with an
asshole like Thomas Lee Elifritz
gabydewilde
No he wires on usenet. But the idea is to stress you. Just laugh at
him, his empty arguments do not require substantiated responses.
The idea is to create a water monopoly. They first build 90% of the US
water mains at the same time. This allowed for natural resources to be
ignored. Now the plumbing needs replacement all over. Adding a bit of
toxins to the mix is just a bonus effect.
They are removing all the tech out of sight, we can clean the ocean if
we wanted to.
We first need to get rid of the useless monopolist gangsters.
Showing the people the technology is there will accomplish that.
Good luck
Tartarus
Like this one, for instance:
"I am one, then you are one also "
Nice.
Tartarus
charlie...@yahoo.com
>
> I clearly stated that this was an intellectual endeavor by a single
> individual, and that the proposal was for the full amount, and I clearly
> outlined exactly to who the money was going, and its specific usage.
There is where you are wrong. It wasn't an intellectual endeavor. It
was just a lot of unsubstantiated BS. Just a lonely blow hard trying
to beat his chest but instead looking like a babbling smuck
tadchem
> tadchem wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 8:53 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> >> Bush EPA Legalizes Widespread Perchlorate Contamination - SRBs
>
> >>http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2008/2008-10-06-01.asp
>
> >> Another parting gift to corporations from the Bush EPA.
>
> > The EPA is its own empire. They have done MANY things that the
> > Executive branch does not approve of, but is powerless to stop.
>
My EPA contacts disagree.
The EPA is empowered by the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 40 -
Protection of the Environment), set up by laws written and passed by
the liberal Congress (catering to their constituent$) and usually
buried so deep in other legislation the the White House never even
notices they are there. Their detailed Rules and Regulations are
simply "interpretations" of the law, and the only accountability in
the regulations is that they must be published in the Federal Register
as NPRs ("Notice of Proposed Rulemaking") from whence they are open to
public 'comment', when the EPA must 'consider' before finalizing the
rules.
The only input the White house has into the process is the selection
(with the 'advice and consent of the Senate') of the Administrator of
the Agency, who basically signs 'policy' documents prepared by his
staff of senior career civil servants and keeps the President informed
of what the Department is doing. The current Administrator (a more
appropriate title would be Regulus) Stephen L. Johnson has been
entrenched in the agency for nearly 30 years.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
hanson
news:afc494b8-cb87-47d2...@l76g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
Thomas Elifritz aka kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
Bush EPA Legalizes Widespread Perchlorate Contamination - SRBs
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2008/2008-10-06-01.asp
Another parting gift to corporations from the Bush EPA.
>
The EPA is its own empire. They have done MANY things that the
Executive branch does not approve of, but is powerless to stop.
>
You can be assured that this isn't one of them. Trust me.
tadchem wrote:
My EPA contacts disagree.
The EPA is empowered by the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 40 -
Protection of the Environment), set up by laws written and passed by
the liberal Congress (catering to their constituent$) and usually
buried so deep in other legislation the the White House never even
notices they are there. Their detailed Rules and Regulations are
simply "interpretations" of the law, and the only accountability in
the regulations is that they must be published in the Federal Register
as NPRs ("Notice of Proposed Rulemaking") from whence they are
open to public 'comment', when the EPA must 'consider' before
finalizing the rules.
>
The only input the White house has into the process is the selection
(with the 'advice and consent of the Senate') of the Administrator of
the Agency, who basically signs 'policy' documents prepared by his
staff of senior career civil servants and keeps the President informed
of what the Department is doing. The current Administrator (a more
appropriate title would be Regulus) Stephen L. Johnson has been
entrenched in the agency for nearly 30 years. -- Tom Davidson
>
hanson wrote:
Davidson, your post is an excellent exposé about
EPA which is as corrupt as are the Goons whose
machinations precipitated the "sub-prime" bubble
expansion and its current collapse.
In view and aftermath of that let us hope that the next
years' Fed Budgets will continue to with the down-
and de-funding of EPA.
>
Elifritz, don't be so devastated (you living in Canada)
over Bush.and waste your energy of beating a "dying
horse"... Let Bush stew in his own legacy...
and be prepared that still "other parting gifts to
corporations from the Bush Admin" will come to light...
... ahahahaha...
BTW, your continued anti-establishment rants make
you sound more and more like a bitter twit who is
on welfare or disability... like Scott Nudds/Vendicar..
But don't let me cramp you style. You are highly
entertaining, Thomas... Thanks for the laughs...
ahahaha... ahahanson
hanson
"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:wxaIk.4504$RN3....@newsfe14.iad...
> hanson wrote:
>
>> BTW, your continued anti-establishment rants make
>
> the establishment look as stupid as it really is? Great!
> Soon there will be no more establishment, and I'll be good to go!
>
hanson wrote:
Wow.. Thomas.. are you a patient with a terminal
case of some life-threatening disease that you talk
of "I'll be good to go!"... or are so fanatical that
"you'll be good to go!"... because of this link:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4149597e352a7020?hl=en
Bless you though, poor guy.. but still thanks for the
laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
hanson
tadchem
> tadchem wrote:
<snip>
> > My EPA contacts disagree.
>
> > The EPA is empowered by the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 40 -
> > Protection of the Environment), set up by laws written and passed by
> > the liberal Congress (catering to their constituent$) and usually
>
> administrated by a presidential nominee, in this case :
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_L._Johnson
...who has been an EPA hack for 27 years. Read the full post.
From the Wiki article:
"Johnson is currently attempting to block the efforts of 17 states to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy."
His defense of this position is doublespeak for "I want the EPA to
control everything, not the states."
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Peter BP
> On Oct 8, 8:02 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> > You are the one making the death threats, not I.
> > Quoting Charlie "KT will get it in the end". Guess what, charlie, I get
> > it.
>
> That isn't a death threat, just a prediction
>
> >I'm a published physicist with a major chemistry
> > result under my belt. I've written two white papers in the past year.
>
> No, you haven't published anything that was peer reviewed or in
> respected journal . Therefore, you aren't "published"
> White papers are dime a dozen and don't mean squat. Especially coming
> from you.
1) Please note that referring to alleged academic achievement,
especially when unspecified, is not an argument and does in not
guarantee that a debater has any superior position in an ongoing debate.
That requires actual argumentation, og which the person you reply to has
provided none.
2) Whipe papers are indeed nice; I often find them useful for wiping my
behind.
>
> > > Critique it? You are not competent enough to even understand it.
> > That's for sure.
>
> Glad we understand that you aren't competent enough to critique
> anything I do.
>
> > > Proof is your COTS proposal.
>
> > Proof is a mathematical theorem. I'm guessing you never proved one.
>
> You haven't proved any mathematical theorem
The person you are responding to is applying the old school-master
tactic of ridiculing the position of an opponent by attacking his choice
of words or postulated meaning of these. Nevertheless it's clear to me
that when you said "proof", you mean so in the common usage of the word,
wich is equivalent to "evidence".
>
> Your proposal didn't have any calculations or proofs. In fact, your
> proposal didn't have drawing or a design of a launch vehicle.
>
> > > You didn't even follow the simple
> > > instructions for submitting the proposal and it was shitcanned right
> > > away
> >
> > No they didn't, I got a complete report back on it.
> >
> > There were no administrative problems with the proposal.
>
> Yes, there were. It didn't meet the requirements and was shitcanned
> right away. The report was done after the fact
Please reconsider your use of time on the person you are respnding to, I
believe that it can be spent quite a lot more productively compared to
what you are doing here.
--
"Another difference between Milton and myself is that everything
reminds Milton of the money supply. Well, everything reminds me of
sex, but I keep it out of the paper." - (attributed to Robert M. Solow)
Peter BP
> On Oct 10, 10:14 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> > charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Glad we understand that you aren't competent enough to critique
> > > anything I do.
> >
> > You haven't done anything. I see possibly a single paper on optics.
> >
> > You are a corporate hack, Charlie.
> >
>
> No, I am not. You have no clue
>
> > > Your proposal didn't have any calculations or proofs.
> >
> > It included an Orbiter addon.
>
> That is not sufficient for proof because there was no real design to
> analysis (see below)
>
> > > In fact, your
> > > proposal didn't have drawing or a design of a launch vehicle.
> >
> > It included a 3D model.
>
> That is only a shell and not based on reality or a real design
I might add that teenage friends of mine have been making 3D models of a
great many things since over a decade ago.
Including 3D models in <whatever> is of course nice, and shows a
technical competence equivalent to at least that of a thirteen year old.
> >
> > >>> You didn't even follow the simple
> > >>> instructions for submitting the proposal
> >
> > I followed all the instructions.
> >
> > >> No they didn't, I got a complete report back on it.
> > >> There were no administrative problems with the proposal.
> > > Yes, there were.
> >
> > Point them out then.
>
> No valid business plan
>
> > > It didn't meet the requirements and was shitcanned
> > > right away. The report was done after the fact
> >
> > Why would they do a report if the proposal wasn't valid?
>
> Because of due diligence.
>
>
> Only a fool would think I would use my real name when dealing with an
> asshole like Thomas Lee Elifritz
Do not lower yourself to said persons level, please.
Peter BP
Mr Wilde, you are wrong. Many times in human history have technology
existed or been broght about, that had the potential to end much human
misery and want, yet we still to a lrge degree experience unsatisfied
needs that are not much different from what we saw in the early middle
ages.
The problem is not technological. It is political. If you think the
problems are solved and the world becomes a Good place after making an
arbitrary new product demonstration, you will be throughly saddened the
day the politicos move in with new, arbitrary legislation to deny the
advantages of whatever it is you offer to the general public (provided
they do not pay tribute to the same politicos and their corporate
sponsors that you touch on).
Patriot
> <charlie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 8, 8:02 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>>
>>> You are the one making the death threats, not I.
>>> Quoting Charlie "KT will get it in the end". Guess what, charlie, I get
>>> it.
>> That isn't a death threat, just a prediction
>>
>>> I'm a published physicist with a major chemistry
>>> result under my belt. I've written two white papers in the past year.
>> No, you haven't published anything that was peer reviewed or in
>> respected journal . Therefore, you aren't "published"
>> White papers are dime a dozen and don't mean squat. Especially coming
>> from you.
>
> 1) Please note that referring to alleged academic achievement,
> especially when unspecified, is not an argument and does in not
> guarantee that a debater has any superior position in an ongoing debate.
On the Nature of Bismuth (I) Iodide in the Solid State
Spec Sci Tech 17, 1 (1994)
charlie...@yahoo.com
> > <charliexmur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On the Nature of Bismuth (I) Iodide in the Solid State
>
> Spec Sci Tech 17, 1 (1994)
link please
Patriot
charlie...@yahoo.com
> charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 5:40 pm, Patriot <patr...@america.org> wrote:
>
> >>> <charliexmur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On the Nature of Bismuth (I) Iodide in the Solid State
>
> >> Spec Sci Tech 17, 1 (1994)
>
> > link please
>
> I just gave you the link you disingenuous prick.
you gave me squat. Any search I do, brings me to other forums where
you are being a dick
Fred J. McCall
:
Ever heard of a place called a 'library', where they keep these paper
things called 'books' and 'periodicals'?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Patriot
Did you try Inspec, genius?