What's the cleanest (from the harmful crap like bacteria/lead/etc)
bottled water anyone? Bay area tap water has high counts of bacteria &
floride. And is it true a simple UV light will kill 99.9% of bacteria
in a gallon of water? TIA.

On Aug 8, 3:40 pm, wrote:
> What's the cleanest (from the harmful crap like bacteria/lead/etc)
> bottled water anyone? Bay area tap water has high counts of bacteria &
> floride. And is it true a simple UV light will kill 99.9% of bacteria
> in a gallon of water? TIA.

I would highly doubt you have "high counts" of bacteria in your tap
water as it is treated for just this reason. Fluoride, yes, bacteria,
most likely not. The "cleanest" bottled water is distilled, but that
is not necessarily the best for tea.

Almost all bottled water comes from those very same taps you find
troublesome just around the country. They filter the water and bottle
it. You can do the very same.

I am a hiker and deal with water purification in the field at times, I
prefer either boiling or a chemical (bleach/Aquasafe tablets) to UV
methods like a Steripen. Many use the UV methods but it is not
something I put any trust in.

- Dominic

bacteria is everywhere in nature
bacteria is all over in/on the human body, contributing to some
essential functions.

from what water report did you read "high count of bacteria" ?

here? http://www.calwater.com/your_water/c...2007/index.php

if such levels reach a threshold they would stop pumping it as opposed
to giving thousands of people and children diarrhea... and having to
pay 10s of millions of dollars in health care and lawsuits.

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:40:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>What's the cleanest (from the harmful crap like bacteria/lead/etc)
>bottled water anyone? Bay area tap water has high counts of bacteria &
>floride. And is it true a simple UV light will kill 99.9% of bacteria
>in a gallon of water? TIA.

I saw a UV light, SteriPENN, that fits in a pocket and will kill even
viruses. It's at

http://www.rei.com/product/761905

Problem is, though, the water has to be clear or any particulates,
such as tea, will cause "shadowing" that prevents the UV from working.

bookburn

writes:

> What's the cleanest (from the harmful crap like bacteria/lead/etc)
> bottled water anyone? Bay area tap water has high counts of bacteria &
> floride.

If you're worried about fluoride, maybe you shouldn't drink tea, which
adds fluoride to the water it's steeped in.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

On Aug 8, 5:06 pm, wrote:
> I saw a UV light, SteriPENN, that fits in a pocket and will kill even
> viruses. It's at
>
> http://www.rei.com/product/761905
>
> Problem is, though, the water has to be clear or any particulates,
> such as tea, will cause "shadowing" that prevents the UV from working.
>
> bookburn

I mentioned this device in my reply, however as I briefly stated above
I would never actually trust this in real life as a well seasoned
hiker/backpacker/camper. This reply is not so much directed to you,
but just in general since I didn't expand too much on my distrust of
UV sterilization.

There is no way to tell if it has "worked." There is no way to tell if
it is in proper working condition (batteries of sufficient charge,
malfunction, any sort of failure). It is dependent on power, which is
not always available... even with a gimmicky solar case. A cloudy day
or night or dense cover or about a million other problems could arise
to render it useless like a cracked panel from oh, say just the kind
of traumatic experience that would lead one to truly need to rely on
it. No filtration at all. I truly could go on forever but I'll cut it
short here. Please read the customer reviews from that REI link as
well as elsewhere on the 'net if you are even considering a UV
sterilizer.

I truly depend on my gear and it can mean the difference between life
and death. Too often I see people fall for the latest gimmick or
flashy product and get stuck in some very bad situations. Sure, here
it may just mean a bad cup of tea but I figured I'd at least offer my
3 cents (the dollar is finally mounting a comeback).

- Dominic

PS FWIW I use a Katadyn Hiker Pro with Aqua Mira tablets as my backup
in almost all occasions. A bandana is my backup filter before
purifying.

On Aug 8, 1:15*pm, "Dominic T." > wrote:
> On Aug 8, 3:40 pm, wrote:
>
> > What's the cleanest (from the harmful crap like bacteria/lead/etc)
> > bottled water anyone? Bay area tap water has high counts of bacteria &
> > floride. And is it true a simple UV light will kill 99.9% of bacteria
> > in a gallon of water? TIA.
>
> I would highly doubt you have "high counts" of bacteria in your tap
> water as it is treated for just this reason. Fluoride, yes, bacteria,
> most likely not. The "cleanest" bottled water is distilled, but that
> is not necessarily the best for tea.
>
> Almost all bottled water comes from those very same taps you find
> troublesome just around the country. They filter the water and bottle
> it. You can do the very same.
>
> I am a hiker and deal with water purification in the field at times, I
> prefer either boiling or a chemical (bleach/Aquasafe tablets) to UV
> methods like a Steripen. Many use the UV methods but it is not
> something I put any trust in.
>
> - Dominic

I plan on trying out UV on my drinking water and posting the results
here. And yes the tap water here has a high bacteria count. I've
tested it.

On Aug 8, 1:40*pm, SN > wrote:
> bacteria is everywhere in nature
> bacteria is all over in/on the human body, contributing to some
> essential functions.
>
> from what water report did you read "high count of bacteria" ?
>
> here?http://www.calwater.com/your_water/c...2007/index.php

wow lots of spanish tap drinkers.
No I tested it myself using a kit.

>
> if such levels reach a threshold they would stop pumping it as opposed
> to giving thousands of people and children diarrhea... and having to
> pay 10s of millions of dollars in health care and lawsuits.

It's high, I haven't the figures in front of me. Don't know if it's
high enough to create serious health probs, but long term it may
accumulate enough to be a serious issue.

On Aug 8, 2:06*pm, wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:40:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> >What's the cleanest (from the harmful crap like bacteria/lead/etc)
> >bottled water anyone? Bay area tap water has high counts of bacteria &
> >floride. And is it true a simple UV light will kill 99.9% of bacteria
> >in a gallon of water? TIA.
>
> I saw a UV light, SteriPENN, *that fits in a pocket and will kill even
> viruses. *It's at
>
> *http://www.rei.com/product/761905
>
> Problem is, though, the water has to be clear or any particulates,
> such as tea, will cause "shadowing" that prevents the UV from working.
>
> bookburn

Super thanks. Lol. Luckily my tap water isn't as mirky as tea,
especially in the filtered reservoir.

On Aug 8, 2:06*pm, Lewis Perin > wrote:
> writes:
> > What's the cleanest (from the harmful crap like bacteria/lead/etc)
> > bottled water anyone? Bay area tap water has high counts of bacteria &
> > floride.
>
> If you're worried about fluoride, maybe you shouldn't drink tea, which
> adds fluoride to the water it's steeped in.
>
I drink tea daily for the health benefits. I've read a lot of negative
things about tea. Don't know what to believe anymore without testing
things yourself. That's why it's wise to do it yourself. How adverse
is flouride?

On Aug 8, 2:26*pm, "Dominic T." > wrote:

> I mentioned this device in my reply, however as I briefly stated above
> I would never actually trust this in real life as a well seasoned
> hiker/backpacker/camper. This reply is not so much directed to you,
> but just in general since I didn't expand too much on my distrust of
> UV sterilization.
>
> There is no way to tell if it has "worked."

Why not? Do two water sample tests pre and post UV.

> wrote

>
I drink tea daily for the health benefits. I've read a lot of negative
things about tea.

Would you please tell me about it, directing me
to references or any literautre on the web,
for instance?

On Aug 10, 12:57*pm, "chance" > wrote:
> > wrote *
>
>
>
> I drink tea daily for the health benefits. I've read a lot of negative
> things about tea.
>
> Would you please tell me about it, directing me
> to references or any literautre on the web,
> for instance?

There's a lot, I don't know where, but don't worry. One thread/site
said some ingredient in tea causes cancer. No worry, because billions
drink tea and prolly >50% of the heaviest tea drinkers who live a long
life didn't die of cancer. Also, you can bet EVERY thing we eat or
drink has at least one adverse health aspect to it. (For every
advantage, there's disadvantages). Even the sun which supports all
life and is healthy especially the natural vitamin D, has some harmful
aspects to it including skin cancer. Yes some foods are unhealthier
than others. Tea ain't one. Eat, sip and be merry. Continue sipping
and enjoying the sun. 8)

Just make sure your water is clean - that's the big issue and one that
can be dealt with fairly easily and inexpensively.

On Aug 10, 1:41*pm, wrote:

Oh yeah, make sure the air you breathe is clean. Very important. Live
upwind from cities. We must go gas-free. I hope gas climbs to $1000/
gallon to speed things along.

And filter your home air! For fast results, I place a big strong
Patton fan at the corner of the biggest room aimed at the hallway. I
weave a damp large beach towel through 3 mesh baskets and place it at
the back of the fan and crank that puppy on high for about fifteen
minutes twice a day. The moisture in the towel traps the most minute
particles that expensive filters miss. Make sure the towel is thin and
the meshing is very aerated so that the fan can easily pull as much
air through it as possible. I also have one fan filter where I spend
most of my time.
The air you breath is as vital as your drinking water. One reason is
we drink about 6-10 glasses of water each day. Compare that to 23,500
breaths we inhale each day!

You can also create pure air by boiling water. Something air-filter
companies won't tell you. You'd be surprised how much air can be made
from so little water. You can see the process using a kettle.

The problem is air moisture (humidity) will be high .. which ages
electronics (for every advantage, there's a disadvantage). A good
dehumidifier will help if you use it simultaneously.

BTW this is how the earth got its air: water flowed onto lava. At
least that's my current personal view.

On Aug 10, 5:08*pm, wrote:

> And filter your home air!... The moisture in the towel traps the most minute
> particles that expensive filters miss.

Why? What is the benefit you're trying to achieve?
Cancer? ... Lung cancer has cigarette smoking as the cause of 90%

> 23,500 breaths we inhale each day!

you mean 14400-20160 ... lets just say 17280 for simplicity. You
obviously breathe more than normal adults. The theophylline sure is
doing a number on you... better check those levels before you
overdose.

> You'd be surprised how much air can be made from so little water.
> BTW this is how the earth got its air: water flowed onto lava.


rec.food.drink.tea = tea =/= (does not equal to) humidifiers, air
purifiers or lava.

.

On Aug 10, 6:51*pm, SN > wrote:

> > And filter your home air!... The moisture in the towel traps the most minute
> > particles that expensive filters miss.
>
> Why? What is the benefit you're trying to achieve?
Umm clean bodies. Prevention against toxins is one of the healthiest
choices.

> Cancer? ... Lung cancer has cigarette smoking as the cause of 90%
>
> > 23,500 breaths we inhale each day!
>
> you mean 14400-20160 ... lets just say 17280 for simplicity. You
> obviously breathe more than normal adults. The theophylline sure is
> doing a number on you... better check those levels before you
> overdose.

23,500 was the number that I got. A little high ok.

>
> > You'd be surprised how much air can be made from so little water.
> > BTW this is how the earth got its air: water flowed onto lava.
>
> rec.food.drink.tea = tea =/= (does not equal to) humidifiers, air
> purifiers or lava.

I know. Can you find a healthy water thread for me. This thread is
getting lame responses now. TIA.

I wouldnt. Epidemiologically the countries that do drink tea and do
better in whatever health category you care to associate also are more
active than us and consume less junk food. The only thing we do
better is tap water. As I always say if drinking tea keeps me alive
another day longer it didnt cost me anything extra. All I know is if
you drink enough tea all at once youll drown.

Jim

PS On my last office visit the Doc said to be sure to drink a lot of
water to flush the kidneys with the new medication. I told her how
much tea I drank and she literally started to stammer saying something
about the chemical makeup of vegetable proteins. I could tell she was
caught off guard. I imagine she immediately got on the phone to the
pharmaceutical company and heard them stammer.

wrote:
....always boil water...
> I drink tea daily for the health benefits. I've read a lot of negative
> things about tea.
....for drinking tea...

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Sunday, August 10,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 10, 1:41*pm, wrote:
>
> Oh yeah, make sure the air you breathe is clean. Very important. Live
> upwind from cities. We must go gas-free. I hope gas climbs to $1000/
> gallon to speed things along.

I feel compelled to delurk and counter this hope. At that cost for
fuel, water quality for tea won't matter as I won't be able to afford
the leaf. Not a lot of tea is grown in the US.

And I seriously doubt that the claim can be substantiated that
schooners and tall ships will be able to replace existing fuel oil
cargo ships to the point that prices don't skyrocket.

> BTW this is how the earth got its air: water flowed onto lava. At
> least that's my current personal view.

That gives you some H2 and some O. Now, where'd the N2, that makes up
78% of our atmosphere, come from?

--
Derek

We read to say that we have read.

On Aug 11, 5:58*am, Space Cowboy > wrote:
> PS *On my last office visit the Doc said to be sure to drink a lot of
> water to flush the kidneys with the new medication. *I told her how
> much tea I drank and she literally started to stammer saying something
> about the chemical makeup of vegetable proteins.

So how much tea do you consume? Everything has negatives. Tea is
prolly better for you overall than 90% of other beverages. The traces
of junk in tea is likely very trivial; however over consumption of the
cleanest water on earth is bad for you.

On Aug 11, 12:08*pm, Derek > wrote:
> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Sunday, August 10,
> 2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:
>
> > On Aug 10, 1:41*pm, wrote:
>
> > Oh yeah, make sure the air you breathe is clean. Very important. Live
> > upwind from cities. We must go gas-free. I hope gas climbs to $1000/
> > gallon to speed things along.
>
> I feel compelled to delurk and counter this hope. At that cost for
> fuel, water quality for tea won't matter as I won't be able to afford
> the leaf. Not a lot of tea is grown in the US.

You've sidestepped my point. I'm actually with you. My hope is for gas
free ($0/gallon) vehicles to be mass marketted. Driving the cost of
gas up is the means for this goal. And it is already working. More
people drive hybrids today. Car companies are finally getting around
to being motivated to explore the idea of cranking out gas free cars.

>
> And I seriously doubt that the claim can be substantiated that
> schooners and tall ships will be able to replace existing fuel oil
> cargo ships to the point that prices don't skyrocket.

Cars. Not ships. One step at a time. Cars pollute our surroundings
about a zillion times more than ships.

>
> > BTW this is how the earth got its air: water flowed onto lava. At
> > least that's my current personal view.
>
> That gives you some H2 and some O. Now, where'd the N2, that makes up
> 78% of our atmosphere, come from?

Soil. Lava. God. Obviously one or more of these sources. Where else?
Where did anything come from?

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Monday, August 11,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 11, 12:08*pm, Derek > wrote:
>> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Sunday, August 10,
>> 2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:
>>
>>> On Aug 10, 1:41*pm, wrote:
>>
>>> Oh yeah, make sure the air you breathe is clean. Very important. Live
>>> upwind from cities. We must go gas-free. I hope gas climbs to $1000/
>>> gallon to speed things along.
>>
>> I feel compelled to delurk and counter this hope. At that cost for
>> fuel, water quality for tea won't matter as I won't be able to afford
>> the leaf. Not a lot of tea is grown in the US.
>
> You've sidestepped my point. I'm actually with you. My hope is for gas
> free ($0/gallon) vehicles to be mass marketted. Driving the cost of
> gas up is the means for this goal. And it is already working. More
> people drive hybrids today. Car companies are finally getting around
> to being motivated to explore the idea of cranking out gas free cars.

And, in the process, they pollute more - just not around here.
Electric vehicle production creates more waste, and more toxic waste,
than production of typical cars. The toxic production just tends to
happen "over there" rather than in our back yards.

I recognize that you've said "gas free," but I'm guessing you also
mean "zero emission vehicles" which rules out diesel as well. However,
electric cars won't take off unless supercapacitors replace batteries
so that the vehicle can be charged in the same amount of time it takes
to top off a tank.

(I'd like to have a nice little diesel that runs on switch grass bio
fuel, gets 70 miles to the gallon and is a lot of fun to drive,
myself. VW's going that direction.)

>> And I seriously doubt that the claim can be substantiated that
>> schooners and tall ships will be able to replace existing fuel oil
>> cargo ships to the point that prices don't skyrocket.
>
> Cars. Not ships. One step at a time. Cars pollute our surroundings
> about a zillion times more than ships.

Depends on where you live. Cargo ship in the LA/Long Beach area
produce about as much pollution each day as an oil refinery.

But you're missing the point. If gasoline is $1000 a gallon, it will
be because oil is similarly expensive. Now, if you want to mandate
nuclear powered cargo ships...

>>> BTW this is how the earth got its air: water flowed onto lava. At
>>> least that's my current personal view.
>>
>> That gives you some H2 and some O. Now, where'd the N2, that makes up
>> 78% of our atmosphere, come from?
>
> Soil. Lava. God. Obviously one or more of these sources. Where else?
> Where did anything come from?

Speaking of side-stepping... (heh.)

Beyond the ultimate source for matter in the universe, boiling H2O
will not produce nitrogen. Neither will it produce free standing
hydrogen or oxygen. Water hitting lava boils, it does not undergo
electrolysis.

The confluence of H2O and magma cannot have produced our atmosphere.

--
Derek

"The trouble with facts is that there are so many of them." -- Samuel
McChord Crothers ("The Gentle Reader")

On Aug 11, 2:23*pm, Derek > wrote:
rolled initiative
don't we all bro

> > You've sidestepped my point. I'm actually with you. My hope is for gas
> > free *($0/gallon) vehicles to be mass marketted. Driving the cost of
> > gas up is the means for this goal. And it is already working. More
> > people drive hybrids today. Car companies are finally getting around
> > to being motivated to explore the idea of cranking out gas free cars.
>
> And, in the process, they pollute more - just not around here.

B.S. propaganda. Electricity produces zero emmissions and nothing else
harmful to our environment. Should we ban electricity altogether??
Yike!

> Electric vehicle production creates more waste, and more toxic waste,
> than production of typical cars. The toxic production just tends to
> happen "over there" rather than in our back yards.

Propaganda. You can't be this stupid?

> I recognize that you've said "gas free," but I'm guessing you also
> mean "zero emission vehicles" which rules out diesel as well.

That's a lofty goal. Reduction is also helpful.

And yes even diesels will peter out eventually, time allowed for
technology to adance. Get out of the fifties bro. Do you believe in
technological advances?

> However,
> electric cars won't take off unless supercapacitors replace batteries
> so that the vehicle can be charged in the same amount of time it takes
> to top off a tank.

I didn't say gas-free today did I. We need to generate serious
motivation today. Higher gas prices forcing people into hybrids is
one.

> (I'd like to have a nice little diesel that runs on switch grass bio
> fuel, gets 70 miles to the gallon and is a lot of fun to drive,
> myself. VW's going that direction.)
>
> >> And I seriously doubt that the claim can be substantiated that
> >> schooners and tall ships will be able to replace existing fuel oil
> >> cargo ships to the point that prices don't skyrocket.
>
> > Cars. Not ships. One step at a time. Cars pollute our surroundings
> > about a zillion times more than ships.
>
> Depends on where you live.

Most of us live in cities. Don't know about you.

> Cargo ship in the LA/Long Beach area
> produce about as much pollution each day as an oil refinery.

Nope. Nice try. I've lived in LA for decades and you're wrong. Now in
the LB harbor
itself during busy hours you are right. There's plenty of air
pollution in non coastal cities and cities along the coast upwind from
the ocean. Many inland cities in China are grossly polluted .. not too
many land ships.

Auto emmisions are the main source of all air pollution simply due to
their numbers. Even factories pale in comparison. Ships are a joke in
comparison.

> But you're missing the point. If gasoline is $1000 a gallon, it will
> be because oil is similarly expensive. Now, if you want to mandate
> nuclear powered cargo ships...

No. I made the first point that the goal is to be gas free. You
continue to duck the issue.

> >>> BTW this is how the earth got its air: water flowed onto lava. At
> >>> least that's my current personal view.
>
> >> That gives you some H2 and some O. Now, where'd the N2, that makes up
> >> 78% of our atmosphere, come from?
>
> > Soil. Lava. God. Obviously one or more of these sources. Where else?
> > Where did anything come from?
>
> Speaking of side-stepping... (heh.)

No, that was just a response to a question you asked. What's your IQ?

> Beyond the ultimate source for matter in the universe, boiling H2O
> will not produce nitrogen. Neither will it produce free standing
> hydrogen or oxygen. Water hitting lava boils, it does not undergo
> electrolysis.

Jeeze, what happens to water when it is heated? It turns into air. So
what do you think when water hits lava, it freezes? Low IQ points
again.

On Aug 11, 4:46 pm, wrote:
> On Aug 11, 5:58 am, Space Cowboy > wrote:
>
> > PS On my last office visit the Doc said to be sure to drink a lot of
> > water to flush the kidneys with the new medication. I told her how
> > much tea I drank and she literally started to stammer saying something
> > about the chemical makeup of vegetable proteins.
>
> So how much tea do you consume? Everything has negatives. Tea is
> prolly better for you overall than 90% of other beverages. The traces
> of junk in tea is likely very trivial; however over consumption of the
> cleanest water on earth is bad for you.

I'd say it's probably not best to feed the trolls... but sometimes
it's just hard to pass up the opportunity to poke one with a pointy
stick a couple times. Don't feed them past midnight or get them wet
either.

- Me

On Aug 11, 8:24 pm, "Dominic T." > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 4:46 pm, wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 5:58 am, Space Cowboy > wrote:
>
> > > PS On my last office visit the Doc said to be sure to drink a lot of
> > > water to flush the kidneys with the new medication. I told her how
> > > much tea I drank and she literally started to stammer saying something
> > > about the chemical makeup of vegetable proteins.
>
> > So how much tea do you consume? Everything has negatives. Tea is
> > prolly better for you overall than 90% of other beverages. The traces
> > of junk in tea is likely very trivial; however over consumption of the
> > cleanest water on earth is bad for you.
>
> I'd say it's probably not best to feed the trolls... but sometimes
> it's just hard to pass up the opportunity to poke one with a pointy
> stick a couple times. Don't feed them past midnight or get them wet
> either.
>
> - Me

heh, see I try to even get involved with trolls and I end up replying
to the wrong post. I meant to reply to Space Cowboy not you steve, you
are in fact the very troll I was speaking of... so don't get your
hopes up that I was on your side. I firmly believe you are either bat
shiat crazy or just a PITA.

- Me again

On Aug 11, 5:27*pm, "Dominic T." > wrote:

> heh, see I try to even get involved with trolls and I end up replying
> to the wrong post. I meant to reply to Space Cowboy not you steve, you
> are in fact the very troll I was speaking of... so don't get your
> hopes up that I was on your side. I firmly believe you are either bat
> shiat crazy or just a PITA.
>
> - Me again- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Care to elaborate or just troll?

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Monday, August 11,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 11, 2:23*pm, Derek > wrote:
rolled initiative
> don't we all bro
>
>>> You've sidestepped my point. I'm actually with you. My hope is for gas
>>> free *($0/gallon) vehicles to be mass marketted. Driving the cost of
>>> gas up is the means for this goal. And it is already working. More
>>> people drive hybrids today. Car companies are finally getting around
>>> to being motivated to explore the idea of cranking out gas free cars.
>>
>> And, in the process, they pollute more - just not around here.
>
> B.S. propaganda. Electricity produces zero emmissions and nothing else
> harmful to our environment. Should we ban electricity altogether??
> Yike!

Yes. We should all go back to wooden cards with stone wheels pulled by
oxen. Once we get rid of the cars, the methane emissions from the oxen
won't appreciably add to our pollution footprints.

>> Electric vehicle production creates more waste, and more toxic waste,
>> than production of typical cars. The toxic production just tends to
>> happen "over there" rather than in our back yards.
>
> Propaganda. You can't be this stupid?

I have not been drinking the Flavor-Aid, thank you very much.

It was Guiness.

>> I recognize that you've said "gas free," but I'm guessing you also
>> mean "zero emission vehicles" which rules out diesel as well.
>
> That's a lofty goal. Reduction is also helpful.
>
> And yes even diesels will peter out eventually, time allowed for
> technology to adance. Get out of the fifties bro. Do you believe in
> technological advances?

No. I refuse to believe in technical advances. They are an abomination
that should be erased from the face of the planet.

>> However,
>> electric cars won't take off unless supercapacitors replace batteries
>> so that the vehicle can be charged in the same amount of time it takes
>> to top off a tank.
>
> I didn't say gas-free today did I. We need to generate serious
> motivation today. Higher gas prices forcing people into hybrids is
> one.

Only the rich. The poor won't be able to afford them, and so they'll
sell their young into servitude to pay the winter heating bills.

>> (I'd like to have a nice little diesel that runs on switch grass bio
>> fuel, gets 70 miles to the gallon and is a lot of fun to drive,
>> myself. VW's going that direction.)
>>
>>>> And I seriously doubt that the claim can be substantiated that
>>>> schooners and tall ships will be able to replace existing fuel oil
>>>> cargo ships to the point that prices don't skyrocket.
>>
>>> Cars. Not ships. One step at a time. Cars pollute our surroundings
>>> about a zillion times more than ships.
>>
>> Depends on where you live.
>

You call this living?

>> Cargo ship in the LA/Long Beach area
>> produce about as much pollution each day as an oil refinery.
>
> Nope. Nice try. I've lived in LA for decades and you're wrong. Now in
> the LB harbor
> itself during busy hours you are right. There's plenty of air
> pollution in non coastal cities and cities along the coast upwind from
> the ocean. Many inland cities in China are grossly polluted .. not too
> many land ships.
>
> Auto emmisions are the main source of all air pollution simply due to
> their numbers. Even factories pale in comparison. Ships are a joke in
> comparison.

I don't disagree. But ships also pollute our oceans poisoning our
fisheries. But, then, when we can't afford to ship them into the
middle of the continent, that won't affect me much.

>> But you're missing the point. If gasoline is $1000 a gallon, it will
>> be because oil is similarly expensive. Now, if you want to mandate
>> nuclear powered cargo ships...
>
> No. I made the first point that the goal is to be gas free. You
> continue to duck the issue.

I'm not ducking it. I'm goosing it.

>>>>> BTW this is how the earth got its air: water flowed onto lava. At
>>>>> least that's my current personal view.
>>
>>>> That gives you some H2 and some O. Now, where'd the N2, that makes up
>>>> 78% of our atmosphere, come from?
>>
>>> Soil. Lava. God. Obviously one or more of these sources. Where else?
>>> Where did anything come from?
>>
>> Speaking of side-stepping... (heh.)
>
> No, that was just a response to a question you asked. What's your IQ?

High enough to recognize that ad hominem attacks are a loser's gambit.

>> Beyond the ultimate source for matter in the universe, boiling H2O
>> will not produce nitrogen. Neither will it produce free standing
>> hydrogen or oxygen. Water hitting lava boils, it does not undergo
>> electrolysis.
>
> Jeeze, what happens to water when it is heated? It turns into air. So
> what do you think when water hits lava, it freezes? Low IQ points
> again.

Oh, please forgive me. How could I ever have confused STEAM for AIR?

--
Derek

"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it
today." -- Abraham Lincoln

On Aug 11, 8:46 pm, wrote:
> Care to elaborate or just troll?

Nah, I'm just a troll 'round here. The most elaborate troll ever, I
reel 'em in with years of topical posts and then bust out the real
inner troll. They never see it comin', just like the Spanish
Inquisition!

- Dominic

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Monday, August 11,
2008, Dominic T. rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 11, 8:46 pm, wrote:
>> Care to elaborate or just troll?
>
> Nah, I'm just a troll 'round here. The most elaborate troll ever, I
> reel 'em in with years of topical posts and then bust out the real
> inner troll. They never see it comin', just like the Spanish
> Inquisition!
>
> - Dominic

You know, Dominic. It's those topical posts that really add the
flourish to your trolling.

--
Derek

There is no greater joy than soaring high on the wings of your dreams,
except maybe the joy of watching a dreamer who has nowhere to land but
in the ocean of reality.

On Aug 11, 5:47*pm, Derek > wrote:
> Yes. We should all go back to wooden cards with stone wheels pulled by
> oxen. Once we get rid of the cars, the methane emissions from the oxen
> won't appreciably add to our pollution footprints.

Throw away technology and go back to oxen eh?

>Trollisms snipped.

> Derek

On Aug 11, 6:19*pm, Derek > wrote:
> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Monday, August 11,
> 2008, Dominic T. rolled initiative and posted the following:
>
> > On Aug 11, 8:46 pm, wrote:
> >> Care to elaborate or just troll?
>
> > Nah, I'm just a troll 'round here. The most elaborate troll ever, I
> > reel 'em in with years of topical posts and then bust out the real
> > inner troll. They never see it comin', just like the Spanish
> > Inquisition!
>
> > - Dominic
>
> You know, Dominic. It's those topical posts that really add the
> flourish to your trolling.
>
> --
> Derek
>
> There is no greater joy than soaring high on the wings of your dreams,
> except maybe the joy of watching a dreamer who has nowhere to land but
> in the ocean of reality.

Nice discussion meltdown today. Full moon? Close.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Monday, August 11,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 11, 5:47*pm, Derek > wrote:
>> Yes. We should all go back to wooden cards with stone wheels pulled by
>> oxen. Once we get rid of the cars, the methane emissions from the oxen
>> won't appreciably add to our pollution footprints.
>
> Throw away technology and go back to oxen eh?
>
>>Trollisms snipped.
>
>> Derek

You snipped your own trollisms? Wow.

--
Derek

"Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter
how slow." -- Plato

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Monday, August 11,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 11, 6:19*pm, Derek > wrote:
>> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Monday, August 11,
>> 2008, Dominic T. rolled initiative and posted the following:
>>
>>> On Aug 11, 8:46 pm, wrote:
>>>> Care to elaborate or just troll?
>>
>>> Nah, I'm just a troll 'round here. The most elaborate troll ever, I
>>> reel 'em in with years of topical posts and then bust out the real
>>> inner troll. They never see it comin', just like the Spanish
>>> Inquisition!
>>
>>> - Dominic
>>
>> You know, Dominic. It's those topical posts that really add the
>> flourish to your trolling.
>>
>> --
>> Derek
>>
>> There is no greater joy than soaring high on the wings of your dreams,
>> except maybe the joy of watching a dreamer who has nowhere to land but
>> in the ocean of reality.
>
> Nice discussion meltdown today. Full moon? Close.

You know, I'd be insulted if that hadn't been typed by someone who
thinks that we breath vaporized water.

--
Derek

The devil finds work for idle glands.

On Aug 11, 9:31 pm, Derek > wrote:
> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Monday, August 11,
> 2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 6:19 pm, Derek > wrote:
> >> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Monday, August 11,
> >> 2008, Dominic T. rolled initiative and posted the following:
>
> >>> On Aug 11, 8:46 pm, wrote:
> >>>> Care to elaborate or just troll?
>
> >>> Nah, I'm just a troll 'round here. The most elaborate troll ever, I
> >>> reel 'em in with years of topical posts and then bust out the real
> >>> inner troll. They never see it comin', just like the Spanish
> >>> Inquisition!
>
> >>> - Dominic
>
> >> You know, Dominic. It's those topical posts that really add the
> >> flourish to your trolling.
>
> >> --
> >> Derek
>
> >> There is no greater joy than soaring high on the wings of your dreams,
> >> except maybe the joy of watching a dreamer who has nowhere to land but
> >> in the ocean of reality.
>
> > Nice discussion meltdown today. Full moon? Close.
>
> You know, I'd be insulted if that hadn't been typed by someone who
> thinks that we breath vaporized water.
>
> --
> Derek
>
> The devil finds work for idle glands.

Vaporized water is probably some of his more sane ideas, you should
read up on some of his top material like (my personal fav) "Vocalists
& Astrology" or where he takes his UV/bacteria musings to
alt.home.repair and gets schooled by actual water professionals and
still rebuffs it all, or how the bugger manages to respond to each and
every response to his posts... every one! Sometimes twice for one
reply! That is dedication and attention to detail only befitting the
most clinically unstable and insane.

OK really I'm not posting anymore here, I really am trying to let this
die away but I'm like moth to flame. Someone get the rack or the
cushions or worse, the comfy chair!

- Truly my last post in Tap Water VS Bottled Water VS insanity

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Monday, August 11,
2008, Dominic T. rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 11, 9:31 pm, Derek > wrote:
>> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Monday, August 11,
>> 2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 11, 6:19 pm, Derek > wrote:
>>>> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Monday, August 11,
>>>> 2008, Dominic T. rolled initiative and posted the following:
>>
>>>>> On Aug 11, 8:46 pm, wrote:
>>>>>> Care to elaborate or just troll?
>>
>>>>> Nah, I'm just a troll 'round here. The most elaborate troll ever, I
>>>>> reel 'em in with years of topical posts and then bust out the real
>>>>> inner troll. They never see it comin', just like the Spanish
>>>>> Inquisition!
>>
>>>>> - Dominic
>>
>>>> You know, Dominic. It's those topical posts that really add the
>>>> flourish to your trolling.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Derek
>>
>>>> There is no greater joy than soaring high on the wings of your dreams,
>>>> except maybe the joy of watching a dreamer who has nowhere to land but
>>>> in the ocean of reality.
>>
>>> Nice discussion meltdown today. Full moon? Close.
>>
>> You know, I'd be insulted if that hadn't been typed by someone who
>> thinks that we breath vaporized water.
>>
>> --
>> Derek
>>
>> The devil finds work for idle glands.
>
> Vaporized water is probably some of his more sane ideas, you should
> read up on some of his top material like (my personal fav) "Vocalists
> & Astrology" or where he takes his UV/bacteria musings to
> alt.home.repair and gets schooled by actual water professionals and
> still rebuffs it all, or how the bugger manages to respond to each and
> every response to his posts... every one! Sometimes twice for one
> reply! That is dedication and attention to detail only befitting the
> most clinically unstable and insane.
>
> OK really I'm not posting anymore here, I really am trying to let this
> die away but I'm like moth to flame. Someone get the rack or the
> cushions or worse, the comfy chair!
>
> - Truly my last post in Tap Water VS Bottled Water VS insanity

I've got a couple of soft pillows behind me. They might work, but I'm
going to be using them in a few minutes.

--
Derek

Don't panic.

On Aug 11, 6:30*pm, Derek > wrote:
> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Monday, August 11,
> 2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:
>
> > On Aug 11, 5:47*pm, Derek > wrote:
> >> Yes. We should all go back to wooden cards with stone wheels pulled by
> >> oxen. Once we get rid of the cars, the methane emissions from the oxen
> >> won't appreciably add to our pollution footprints.
>
> > Throw away technology and go back to oxen eh?
>
> >>Trollisms snipped.
>
> >> Derek
>
> You snipped your own trollisms? Wow.
>
> --
> Derek
No yours Sherlock.

On Aug 11, 6:31*pm, Derek > wrote:
> You know, I'd be insulted if that hadn't been typed by someone who
> thinks that we breath vaporized water.

You haven't the brains to be insulted. Ever hear of evaporation? Lets
have your brilliant explanation for the origin of air.

On Aug 11, 7:30*pm, "Dominic T." > wrote:

>Vaporized water is probably some of his more sane ideas, you should
> read up on some of his top material like (my personal fav) "Vocalists
> & Astrology"

Insane ideas? Try very sane provable facts of which you can't even
debate.

> or where he takes his UV/bacteria musings to
> alt.home.repair and gets schooled by actual water professionals and

No such thread exists for discussing tap water .. I've already covered
that.

> still rebuffs it all, or how the bugger manages to respond to each and
> every response to his posts... every one! Sometimes twice for one
> reply! That is dedication and attention to detail only befitting the
> most clinically unstable and insane.

Show me where I'm wrong Einstein.

> OK really I'm not posting anymore here, I really am trying to let this
> die away but I'm like moth to flame. Someone get the rack or the
> cushions or worse, the comfy chair!

Oh so no counter arguments, just Trollisms and scram huh? Ok Troll.

> - Truly my last post in *Tap Water VS Bottled Water VS insanity

Two out of three. The insanity part leaves when you leave.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

>> or where he takes his UV/bacteria musings to
>> alt.home.repair and gets schooled by actual water professionals and
>
> No such thread exists for discussing tap water .. I've already covered
> that.

According to Google's archive, it does. Was someone else posting from
your account?

--
Derek

Everyone hates me because I'm paranoid.

While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 11, 6:31*pm, Derek > wrote:
>> You know, I'd be insulted if that hadn't been typed by someone who
>> thinks that we breath vaporized water.
>
> You haven't the brains to be insulted. Ever hear of evaporation? Lets
> have your brilliant explanation for the origin of air.

Evaporation produces H20 in the air. It's still water. It doesn't
produce nitrogen or free-standing oxygen, which make up the majority
of our air.

Rewording your original premise makes you repetitive, not right.

--
Derek

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents
do not cease to be insipid." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

> wrote:
>
>B.S. propaganda. Electricity produces zero emmissions and nothing else
>harmful to our environment. Should we ban electricity altogether??
>Yike!

I take it you have never lived next to a big coal-fired generator plant?
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."