Could an anti-global warming atmospheric spraying program really work?

November 22, 2018, Institute of Physics
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

A program to reduce Earth's heat capture by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere from high-altitude aircraft is possible, inexpensive, and would be unlikely to remain secret.

Those are the key findings of new research published today in Environmental Research Letters, which looked at the capabilities and costs of various methods of delivering sulphates into the lower stratosphere, known as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI).

The researchers examined the costs and practicalities of a large scale, hypothetical 'solar geoengineering' project beginning 15 years from now. Its aim would be to halve the increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing, by deploying material to altitudes of around 20 kilometres.

They also discussed whether such an idealized program could be kept secret.

Dr. Gernot Wagner, from Harvard University's John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, is a co-author of the study. He said: "Solar geoengineering is often described as 'fast, cheap, and imperfect'.

"While we don't make any judgement about the desirability of SAI, we do show that a hypothetical deployment program starting 15 years from now, while both highly uncertain and ambitious, would be technically possible strictly from an engineering perspective. It would also be remarkably inexpensive, at an average of around $2 to 2.5 billion per year over the first 15 years."

The researchers confirm earlier studies that discuss the low direct costs of potential stratospheric aerosol geoengineering intervention, but they arrive at those numbers with the help of direct input from aerospace engineering companies in specifying what the paper dubs the 'SAI Lofter (SAIL)'.

Wake Smith, a co-author of the study, is a lecturer at Yale College and held former positions as CEO of Pemco World Air Services (a leading aircraft modification company), COO of Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings (a global cargo airline), and President of the flight training division of Boeing. He said: "I became intrigued by the engineering questions around SAI and the many studies that purport to show that modified existing planes could do the job. Turns out that is not so. It would indeed take an entirely new plane design to do SAI under reasonable albeit entirely hypothetical parameters. No existing aircraft has the combination of altitude and payload capabilities required."

Mr. Smith said: "We developed the specifications for SAIL with direct input from several aerospace and engine companies. It's equivalent in weight to a large narrow body passenger aircraft. But to sustain level flight at 20 kms, it needs roughly double the wing area of an equivalently sized airliner, and double the thrust, with four engines instead of two.

"At the same time, its fuselage would be stubby and narrow, sized to accommodate a heavy but dense mass of molten sulphur rather than the large volume of space and air required for passengers."

The team estimated the total development costs at less than $2 billion for the airframe, and a further $350 million for modifying existing low-bypass engines.

The new planes would comprise a fleet of eight in the first year, rising to a fleet of just under 100 within 15 years. The fleet would fly just over 4,000 missions a year in year one, rising to just over 60,000 per year by year 15.

Dr. Wagner said: "Given the potential benefits of halving average projected increases in radiative forcing from a particular date onward, these numbers invoke the 'incredible economics' of solar geoengineering. Dozens of countries could fund such a program, and the required technology is not particularly exotic."

However, in the authors' view, this should not reinforce the often-invoked fear that a rogue country or operator might launch a clandestine SAI program upon an unsuspecting world.

Mr Smith said: "No global SAI program of the scale and nature discussed here could reasonably expect to maintain secrecy. Even our hypothesized Year one deployment program entails 4000 flights at unusually high altitudes by airliner-sized aircraft in multiple flight corridors in both hemispheres. This is far too much aviation activity to remain undetected, and once detected, such a program could be deterred."

Explore further: S. Korea's Jeju Air in $4.4 bn 40-plane Boeing order

More information: Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment, Environmental Research Letters (2018). DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d

Related Stories

New scheduling system could help reduce flight delays

November 13, 2018

Scheduling and coordinating air traffic can be difficult, but taking the airlines' and passengers' delay costs into account can actually save airlines money and result in fewer delays, according to a new study from Binghamton ...

SolarEagle unmanned aircraft to fly non-stop for 5 years

September 22, 2010

The Boeing Company on Sept. 14 signed an agreement with the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop and fly the SolarEagle unmanned aircraft for the Vulture II demonstration program. Under the terms ...

Recommended for you

Coral larvae found to prefer a noisy environment

December 12, 2018

A team of researchers with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has found that coral larvae prefer to set up a new home in a place noisy with other living organisms over a barren soundless site. In their paper published ...

A glimpse into future oceans

December 11, 2018

Something peculiar is happening in the azure waters off the rocky cliffs of Ischia, Italy. There, streams of gas-filled volcanic bubbles rising up to the surface are radically changing life around them by making seawater ...

Sierra snowpack could drop significantly by end of century

December 11, 2018

A future warmer world will almost certainly feature a decline in fresh water from the Sierra Nevada mountain snowpack. Now a new study by the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) that ...

197 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

marcush
5 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2018
It's good to have as many options on the table as possible. Keep the research going....
rderkis
4 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2018
marcush, you are absolutely right. Don't be hasty, we still have time and as it sits with enough computer power and the use of simulations will tell the story in the near future.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2018
LOL, they had to debunk contrails for their research.
jhoskam
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2018
This sounds stupid, if you want sulfur,just burn more high sulfur coal. What we need is less burning of hydrocarbons, the biggest one would be cars around the would. If you have ever lit gas on fire, even a small amount give off massive amount of heat. Now just think of how much heat every tank full of gas gives off.
We need better mass transportation!
TogetherinParis
not rated yet Nov 23, 2018
Orbit big balloons instead. Stop the heat before it enters the atmosphere. 1.7% coverage at the equator would stop global warming reversibly.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2018
The Secret

phys.org> A program to reduce Earth's heat capture by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere from high-altitude aircraft is possible, but unreasonably costly with current technology, and would be unlikely to remain secret.

The secret is to keep this secret, secret
If you are so immature about your research
That to prove your research experimentally
You have to conduct it in secret
So that no one knows of your embarrassment when your experiment fails to prove theory
You're going to be in for one almighty let down
Conducting this experiment in secret
Because my friend
This experiment will go disastrously wrong
It will be the most calamitous experiment
Since the very first microbes materialised in the slime 4.5billion years ago
If you have heard of that Hollywood film "String them high"
You will have a posse of regulators on horseback hunting you down
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2018
It's good to have as many options on the table as possible.

Looking into stuff like this just encourages countries not to switch over.

These types of ideas cannot be clean up if they have some unintended consequences (as almost everything has as soon as you apply it to a complex system like the friggin' Earth's ecosystem) . I find such projects extremely foolhardy.
Especially since they cost loads of money to implement. Which in turn means there will be any number of companies that won't care if it totally destroys the planet in the process.
rrrander
3.1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2018
sure, lets pump sulfur into the atmosphere, usher in acid rain on a global scale and wreck people's lungs to fight the fiction of global warming.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2018
The foreseen unforeseen consequences

If America decides to conduct this experiment
as it is an experiment
There is no knowing of the expected unexpected consequences
notwithstanding the American downtrodden taxpayer footing the bill
if for example
China objects that the air Chinese citizens is intentional being polluted by a foreign power
the consequences of this experiment could escalate to lethal proportions
the world has not seen for over 50 years
if this experiment is conducted every person on this planet as a taxpayer has to agree to pay their due
and has to sign a disclaimer for the forseen unforeseen consequences!
beeferer
5 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2018
Here's a big "What if"... What if ALL pavement were more of a light color instead of blacktop? What if ALL roofing materials were white? Let's reflect on this- literally.
V4Vendicar
3 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2018
Global Warming is a hoax until American companies can make a profit from it.
zz5555
5 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2018
Here's a big "What if"... What if ALL pavement were more of a light color instead of blacktop? What if ALL roofing materials were white? Let's reflect on this- literally.

This can help with the Urban Heat Island effect, although for tall buildings it has little effect (https://www.scien...15300110 ). However, the UHI effect has little effect on global warming since rural and urban regions have the same warming trend (https://skeptical...asic.htm ).
HeloMenelo
4 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2018
sure, lets pump sulfur into the atmosphere, usher in acid rain on a global scale and wreck people's lungs to fight the fiction of global warming.

Antigoracle's sockpuppet Trying to think while swinging those trees make his comments look even dumber than they already are...is that even possible ?
Global Warming is devestating the world and is getting worse by the day.
HeloMenelo
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2018
Global Warming is a hoax until American companies can make a profit from it.

Lol Saying so using different sockpuppets is not going to help you look any better dumbnuts.

Let me put the facts: Oil companies is Real and they have been making Profits out of earths devastation for around 100 Years. Yes let me repeat that For ONE HUNDRED YEARS ! ! But we can see you've been swinging those branches hard, hence the dumb comments you provide everyday ;)
Anonym562616
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2018
So let me guess...this is Al Gore's new scam to capitolize on the uber stupid.
HeloMenelo
3 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2018
Global Warming is a hoax until American companies can make a profit from it.


Very true, just to be clear, the shout out a gave below are for antigoracle and his goons, not you... :)
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2018
This might solve the warming problem, but it fails to address other issues with higher levels of CO2 and adds new problems. Ocean acidification would continue unless CO2 emissions dropped tp ~0 leading to further deterioration of the oceans. And higher levels of CO2 have been shown to decrease the nutritional content of grains like rice. By definition, injecting particles into the upper atmosphere would result in less sun reaching the crops and a reduction in yield. Unless emissions were stopped, the number of particles released would have to continually be increased, meaning even less sun reaching the crops. Why not just reduce/eliminate emissions in the first place?
frflyer
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2018
"Al Gore's new scam to capitolize on the uber stupid."
Talk about Uber Stupid

Al Gore has ZERO to do with the science, agreed on by Every major professional science organization in the World, with relevance to earth sciences.
Okay, I lied. Here's the list of professional science organizations that don't agree.

The American Association of PETROLEUM Geologists
The Canadian Society of PETROLEUM Geologists
-----
The consensus on AGW is really a consensus of evidence for AGW.
Here is what it looks like.

Between 1991 -2012 there were 13,950 papers published.
24 of them reject AGW.
Of the 33,690 scientists who contributed to the 13,950 papers, only 34 reject AGW - [That's 1/10 of 1%]
-----

And the consensus keeps getting stronger

In the one year + from November 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013, -
there were 2,225 peer reviewed papers published by 9,136 contributing scientists.
Only ONE of those 9,136 rejects AGW - [That's just over 1/100 of 1% ]
frflyer
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2018
Da Schneib

It's easy to debunk chemtrails. All you need is actual science and common sense.
Believers all think that Contrails should not persist for more than a few minutes, and that they shouldn't spread out into thin clouds. This is patently False, as every book on clouds, written in the past 70 years says.
-------
Persisting and Spreading Contrails

http://contrailsc...ntrails/
-----------

Encyclopædia Britannica article on vapour trails (contrails)

Contrail, streamer of cloud sometimes observed behind an airplane flying in clear, cold, humid air. It forms upon condensation of the water vapour produced by the combustion of fuel in the airplane engines. When the ambient relative humidity is high, the resulting ice-crystal plume may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, and sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud.

http://www.britan...ur-trail
--
snoosebaum
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2018
oh wow,, '' They also discussed whether such an idealized program could be kept secret.''

now we know there is a faction that is really crazy [think about it ]

and since no poster above took notice we have a great mix of crazy AND stupid
julianpenrod
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2018
Among other things, the program could be inexpensive from the start.
In any finite hierarchical society, there is a top level and, financially, the world is hierarchical. There is a top level, the New World Order. Anything they pay for a project essentially they pay to themselves, so they never run out.
As for the project remaining secret, how many know or acknowledge chemtrailing today? People vote for bums who betray them every time yet insist that, the next time will be different. To show how simple it is to vote, meaning the government does not disenfranchise anyone, Trump said what you have in your wallet can serve as voter ID. When you buy cereal, you have voter ID. Those who hate Trump actually believe that he said you need voter ID to but cereal! It can be said the vast majority of the general populace are witless dullards.
dustywells
not rated yet Nov 23, 2018
Some of the symptoms of Climate Change include heat (of course), drought, intense storms...

What would be the effect of the large scale evaporation of water over cities and dry land?

Water vapor is naturally in the atmosphere and blocks insolation quite effectively while at the same time modifying other symptoms of Climate Change as well, benefiting the environment without the use of toxic chemicals.

Evaporation cools the immediate area, clouds form and cool other areas, rain falls and brings evaporation to additional locales. In many instances rain brings life to entire ecosystems while sulfur brings death.
zz5555
5 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2018
As for the project remaining secret, how many know or acknowledge chemtrailing today?

Yes, of course. If no one acknowledges it, that means it must be true. ;)
Trump said what you have in your wallet can serve as voter ID.

What's in a wallet? Credit cards, driver's license, and cash. Cash is out because poll taxes have long been outlawed. In 2014, 29% of American adults had no credit cards, but how a credit card would be acceptable, I can't say. And many Americans are opting out of driver's licenses. Those are mostly younger adults and people who live in cities (so they don't need a car). People more likely to vote against Trump. Are you saying that Trump is trying to disenfranchise Americans of their right to vote?
It can be said the vast majority of the general populace are witless dullards.

Yes, and you fit right in with them. ;)
antigoracle
2 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2018
In the 1970's and 80's, international agreements were signed and billions spent on stopping the emission of these very same compounds into the atmosphere. Now, the AGW Cult, preying on the astonishing stupidity of their Chicken Little jackasses, is proposing deliberately spraying these compounds at the cost of further BILLIONS and unknown damage to the environment.

LMAO.
Keep braying jackasses, you'll save the world.
guptm
not rated yet Nov 23, 2018
Intervention with nature at its peak.
B Fast
5 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2018
Please, no "fixing" nature. Rather, let's get serious about not destroying it.
Steelwolf
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2018
When they started the program, back in the 70's, they informed the public that they would started mixing certain chemical wastes into the jet fuel as a way to 'incinerate it at high altitude' with our military craft and passenger fleets as a way to get rid of the stocks of such things as sulfur contaminated benzenes and PCBs, which would 'largely burn' during normal operation.

This was to get rid of 'hazardous waste materials' so they would not be contaminating us when disposed such as at Love Canal.

So they have been 'chem trailing' us for decades. Who knows what all junk they put thru them jet engines, which are NOT so efficient on the burn as they would like to advertise.

Putting up a very obvious political 'balloon' that can be popped and they can say "See, no chemtrails, we are Geoengineering now" But does not change the facts of what they have been doing for decades already.

A rose, by any other name, wilts the same in acid rain.
frflyer
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2018
Chemtrails is NONSENSE

http://conspiraci...mtrails/

https://www.metab...rails.9/

Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media
https://www.natur...7-0014-3

frflyer
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2018
frflyer
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2018
What In The World Are They Spraying? – An explanation of the mistakes in the popular chemtrail video.

http://contrailsc...praying/

-----
from Contrail Science dot com

Theorist claim: Chemical tests reveal aluminum and barium have been sprayed

In reality the tests all show normal levels of chemicals. They were often very badly performed (testing soil instead of water, and confusing the level, or using the wrong units of measurements).

Barium Chemtrails on KSLA – A very popular "chemtrail" news story where the reporter gets his figures entirely wrong.

Chemtrail Non-science Air analysis from Phoenix that shows levels so high we'd all be dead. They did it wrong.

Chemical Analysis of Contrails – Clifford Carnicom claims high levels of some chemicals, but they actually show lower than normal levels.

---
Steelwolf
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2018
Did I say Barium or Aluminum? Do you have an automatic kneejerk reaction when you see the word Chemtrail...how much do they pay you to get so indignant? Must be good money, that or they only pay by the post. Poor guy.

I told you the truth about Govt/Military Policy.

Reviewed papers will not show that, but you will find that Incineration of chemical wastes is considered the Best Disposal Practice, and incineration of certain classes of chemicals certainly has been a part of aviation fuel additive sciences since the 70's.

I was a Military Firefighter in the 80's, I HAD to know these things and the toxin levels associated with the different fuels. Forget Barium and Aluminum, look at the non-recyclable liquid chemical disposals. Highly flammable hazardous waste has been a fuel additive to reduce the amounts going into landfills ever since the 70s.
ddaye
not rated yet Nov 23, 2018
Why not just reduce/eliminate emissions in the first place?
Because we don't have permission, and there isn't any credible power block with a plan to get that permission.
zz5555
5 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2018
Why not just reduce/eliminate emissions in the first place?
Because we don't have permission, and there isn't any credible power block with a plan to get that permission.

You missed the point. The only way for the spraying to work is if we also get emissions down to ~0. If we're going to do that anyway, why not skip the spraying and just get emissions down to ~0?

You do bring up a good point, though, about geoengineering. Since geoengineering generally affects the whole world, it will require a powerful global authority to enforce it. After all, if China gets the additional water it needs, it will probably come at the expense of India and/or Russia. So arguing against mitigation is equivalent to arguing for the one world government that much of the anti-science movement claims to hate.
arcmetal
5 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2018
I wonder if this would be counter productive. There are a lot of systems, known and unknown, that are absorbing the current extra CO2 in the air. And these systems are generally powered by photosynthesis. So, blocking the sun would reduce the power of these systems to absorb the extra CO2, and thus extend the time the Earth is in this period of warming.

Following plans derived by Charles Montgomery Burns, is probably a poor idea.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2018
It's easy to debunk chemtrails. All you need is actual science and common sense.
I never bothered trying to debunk them. Just common sense told me it was nonsense.
szore88
2 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2018
The Religion of Science.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2018
The religion of all conspiracy theories. Like there being a super magic daddy in the sky who makes everything happen.

Tell us, @szore, who's the super magic sky daddy of science?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2018
I wonder if this would be counter productive. There are a lot of systems, known and unknown, that are absorbing the current extra CO2 in the air. And these systems are generally powered by photosynthesis. So, blocking the sun would reduce the power of these systems to absorb the extra CO2, and thus extend the time the Earth is in this period of warming.
In general I would agree, @arcmetal; I think insolation is the wrong target for geoengineering. Actually reducing atmospheric CO2 seems to me the better route to a solution, and I don't think reducing emissions is going to work.

It's not like Pakistan can protest we're drawing down CO2 at some remote geographical location, though they might not like their portion of the bill for doing so.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2018
@steel
I told you the truth about Govt/Military Policy.
calling bullsh*t on this one
if it was the "truth" then you could produce the requisite paperwork because the one thing that the gov't, and especially the military, live on it's paperwork (you know, like AFI 91-203, AFR 92-1)

plus, it's not classified - It can't be as there is a current AFI that covers OSHA and other related disposals of contaminated fuels

FOIA would allow you to get a copy

given that you're not producing either, then....
I was a Military Firefighter in the 80's, I HAD to know these things and the toxin levels associated with the different fuels...
and again: links, references and evidence?

I was also a firefighter and the USAF started using JP-4 in fire trucks in the 1990's... can you at least produce an MSDS supporting your argument of "mixing certain chemical wastes into the jet fuel" to get rid of it?
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2018
This Global Warmest Experiment

This pyhs.org article fails to mention
what exactly
these global warmests
are preparing to spray
into our atmosphere
if these global warmests
have good intentions
and their sprays
contain no harmfull additives
what is their reasons
for keeping their planet saving experiment secret
nature has given its peoples
a highly sensed level of scepticism
to weazle good intentioned peoples
such as these global warmests out their burrows
because my friends
these global warmests are up to mischief most foul
by their full intention to hide every aspect
of this lethal cocktail they fully intention
to spray into our atmosphere
for us to breathe
because they are keeping it secret
Anonym692504
not rated yet Nov 24, 2018
My Testimony

I am happy today that i got a loan from this legitimate company after many years of been financial down and also got scammed in the process until i met this great man who helped me with a loan of $53,000 and i will advice all loan seekers to contact this company on: For Urgent Response very much available send me messages or Email: franklymiller@aol.com
Minglewood
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2018
...and bring on the next ice age, just about due, except that global warming has been slowing it down.
JaxPavan
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2018
The western banking consumer model of wealth will need to harness demand destruction after peak oil, or else price controls will fail and producer nations will become richer.

That's what global warming is mostly about: it's code for peak oil.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2018
Burning oil is contributing, but the big villain is coal.

Pakistan is building a bunch of coal-fired electric plants. With help from China. This is idiotic on both their parts.

Maybe you think we should "study" it some more.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2018
...and bring on the next ice age, just about due, except that global warming has been slowing it down.
You mean the one that's going to happen in 50 thousand years? Another idiotic denier post. We're talking about major climate change in 80 years, and how major it will be will be determined in the next decade. Do you even know what 50 thousand means?
Anonym518498
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2018
more complete insanity from the warmistas, whose ultimate goal is to kill off roughly 5 billion humans, give or take a few million
frflyer
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2018
Anonym518498

Amazing how far your imagination can take you, when you are a conspiracy theorist tin foil hat type.

frflyer
5 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2018
Da Schneib

"Actually reducing atmospheric CO2 seems to me the better route to a solution, and I don't think reducing emissions is going to work. "

All of the above is needed. Stopping emissions is primary. When you find that you have dug yourself into a hole in the ground, Stop Digging, rather than trying to adapt to the hole.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2018
Meh. Certainly spraying chemicals that are a significant component of smog into the atmosphere doesn't sound like a good idea.

The most interesting idea I've seen on this thread was the one with the giant balloons. @TogtherinParis:
Orbit big balloons instead. Stop the heat before it enters the atmosphere. 1.7% coverage at the equator would stop global warming reversibly.
Cheap, too.
howhot3
not rated yet Nov 24, 2018
It'll never work! The problem is people. ... You have to convince people of the problem before you go asking 3.5 billion per year to throw toxic sulfur-based materials into the atmosphere in spray form no less. No matter how bad the weather gets it's not global warming its global cooling. I think I've heard a few folks say that.

As an emergency step the first action I would take would be to globally ban all coal-fired electric plants. That is25% of all CO2 emissions right there.
Steelwolf
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2018
@Stump: please take a look at Chapter 12 in this booklet as it details the use of (at least) Benzene in the Jet Fuel. This Should be official enough:

https://p2infohou...1293.pdf

I have no need to lie about this sort of thing. Look also at the Heavy metals produced in the normal use of the jet engines, the buildup on internal surfaces, and detailing the cleaning of the turbines due to the ablation as well as combustion effects, along with whatever fuel additives. As I said, I HAD to know.

Cheers
Steelwolf
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2018
You can also study the Wikipedia article on Jet Fuel, with a section on additives for various reasons, Military craft requiring certain additives that civilian craft do not, while civilian craft have their own needed additives.

arcmetal
not rated yet Nov 25, 2018
@frflyer
All of the above is needed. Stopping emissions is primary. When you find that you have dug yourself into a hole in the ground, Stop Digging, rather than trying to adapt to the hole.

The only solutions I have read about lately are mostly about adapting to the hole. Fixing it appears to get a back seat.

I'd say, buy some empty land in Canada to start a farm, or buy some more inland property and wait for it to become a beach.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2018
@Steel
please take a look at Chapter 12 in this booklet as it details the use of (at least) Benzene in the Jet Fuel
It doesn't state that benzene is incinerated due to best practices for the disposal of hazardous chemicals, nor does it state that it is "mixing certain chemical wastes into the jet fuel as a way to 'incinerate it at high altitude' with our military craft and passenger fleets as a way to get rid of the stocks of such things as sulfur contaminated benzenes and PCBs"
I have no need to lie about this sort of thing.
perhaps you are presenting your information because you don't comprehend the data, so it's a lie from ignorance

The additives in the jet fuels are there for a purpose, but it's not to incinerate HAZ-MAT waste - in point of fact, your link specifically states that the EPA limits these chemicals under The Clean Air Act of 1970 [page 11]
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2018
@steel cont'd
You can also study the Wikipedia article on Jet Fuel
the fuels used and their additives are defined by the requirements for the product, such as the freezing or smoke point, carburetion characteristics, autoignition point, antistatic, Biocides, gumming, etc
https://en.wikipe...dditives

As I said, I HAD to know
and as I said: so did I

I am not arguing that there are no additives in jet fuel, etc
I am making a point about your statements regarding
they informed the public that they would started mixing certain chemical wastes into the jet fuel as a way to 'incinerate it at high altitude' with our military craft and passenger fleets as a way to get rid of the stocks of such things as sulfur contaminated benzenes and PCBs, which would 'largely burn' during normal operation
this is absolute BS

Both your posts were the argument from personal authority about Govt/Military Policy, and you're wrong
Steelwolf
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2018
Note the term "Limit", does not Forbid, just REGULATES the amounts used. Damn you are dense, and such a By The Book Martinet twit that you never stuck your head down the Rabbit Hole due to Orders, right? How many people did you lose due to Book vs Reality?

How is the tooth fairy handling your dentures?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel
Note the term "Limit", does not Forbid, just REGULATES the amounts used
sigh
regulates still doesn't mean it justifies the additives for the purpose of disposal, per your claims

it even states the purpose in the law
42 U.S.C. §7401
https://www.law.c.../42/7401

also note: in the authorities tab you can read up on the CFR's and definitions of the terms so you're more clear about what is being done

most importantly: regulation of pollution doesn't justify your argument of "they would started mixing certain chemical wastes into the jet fuel as a way to 'incinerate it at high altitude" [sic]

In point of fact, it debunks your argument as it directly demonstrates your argument is wrong as well as your belief is based upon ignorance of the law, physics, and purpose of said additives

.

Enjoy the reading and tell your tooth fairy in your rabbit hole that reality is much better
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel addendum
How many people did you lose due to Book vs Reality?
I've never lost a single firefighter in action at a scene because I do my homework and I know my sh*t - and my strong point is investigations

of course, none of that, including your own experiences, are relevant or justify any argument
Evidence, however, does justify an argument

above, you claimed the gov't "informed the public that they would started mixing certain chemical wastes into the jet fuel as a way to 'incinerate it at high altitude' "[sic]

This is patently false, and this is demonstrated above with the links/references and the production of 42 U.S.C. §7401

"limit" is specifically stating that they understand sh*t may need to be there for a purpose, but they also note that they'll enforce limitations of said toxic chemical to protect the public

.

IOW - "Damn you are dense": your argument is conspiracist ideation which you've still not been able to produce evidence for
Steelwolf
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2018
Just from the basic Wiki, and it is clear enough on the subject that I stand by what I have said. They can always 'repurpose' those hazardous wastes into 'anti-oxidants, anti-freeze and anti-microbial agents instead. Is not the first time they labeled a waste product as something else.

But, when you do a basic google on jet fuel additives, for example, you get this:

Aviation fuels consist of blends of over two thousand chemicals, primarily hydrocarbons (paraffins, olefins, naphthenes, and aromatics), additives such as antioxidants and metal deactivators, biocides, static reducers, icing inhibitors, corrosion inhibitors, and impurities.
Aviation fuel - Wikipedia

Tell me all 2 thousand plus chemicals are not some corp-rat's way of making a profit off a stinking heap of rubbish that would have cost tons to get rid of normally. Find some use for it, re-label it and get it past the regulation on that basis.

All that 'safe' stuff in our house, burns toxic as hell.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel
Just from the basic Wiki, and it is clear enough on the subject that I stand by what I have said
and that same wiki article explained why an additive is in the fuel in the link I provided above, never once stating they were added to burn off by gov't mandate
They can always 'repurpose' those hazardous wastes into 'anti-oxidants, anti-freeze and anti-microbial agents instead. Is not the first time they labeled a waste product as something else... Tell me all 2 thousand plus chemicals are...
circular argument, irrelevant, no evidence

this is your attempt to justify your conspiracist ideation
All that 'safe' stuff in our house, burns toxic as hell
and?

your argument was that additives were there to burn off toxic chemicals by the gov't and that it was public knowledge - if it was "truth" as you claimed, you would be able to provide links and evidence proving your argument

I've provided links/references disproving your argument
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@stump You are clearly ignoring the fact that the corporations have major financial benefits from selling and using the nasty additives that they do, and they continually work to get around Govt Regulation and/or find ways to circumvent it, as with these additives, which are Not healthy and do Not incinerate fully. Not even the clean jet fuels, without additives burn 'clean', and with the additives it makes it only worse.

You seem to have your head stuck in the sand of a thousand books that all give a nice rosy picture, yet you have made comments about moving out and away from the City. Seems like you are basing your OWN living space based on knowing how polluted the City System is and getting away from it.

Same folks who pollute their own city will easily pollute the world's air, and not care much as long as their own day at the beach is not disturbed and the money flows for the Quarter. Quarter after Quarter.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
You can point out law after law, statute after statute, and for every one you bring up I can chalk up about a thousand speed limit signs that get the same lip service, wink and nod and money changes hands in a regular fashion. A little bit if ya get busted, but continually people will zip along way over speed, until caught, ticketed and fined, a payoff, and things are back to usual.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel
You are clearly ignoring the fact that the corporations have major financial benefits from selling and using the nasty additives that they do
no, I'm not

you made an argument that you claim was true, and a gov't program, but the argument is based solely upon your argument from Conspiracist Ideation and your circular reasoning, so there is no "truth" unless you accept the premise of your conspiracy

What I am asking for is evidence for your proof, which, given the gov't and military, should be easily accessed as it would be in writing

None of your claims is national security - if they were you would be prosecuted for violations under the UCMJ and other federal laws
Seems like you are basing your OWN living space based on knowing how polluted the City System is and getting away from it
partly - but that's still irrelevant to the above

the evidence just isn't in your corner - you're talking belief, not science
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel
and for every one you bring up I can chalk up about a thousand speed limit signs that get the same lip service
like I said: conspiracist ideation

IOW-
The genius of conspiracy theories is that you can't prove them wrong, and this is true for two reasons.

The first is that most conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on values other than science, and sometimes on fear. They are motivated to believe what they do, and unless those motivations change, it is unlikely they will be swayed by rational argument.

The second reason is that their logic is self-sealing, designed to be impermeable to external reasoning.
- October 6, 2014 by Peter Ellerton [edited for length - Cap]

this is demonstrated in your comments

you made an argument from what you claim was "... the truth about Govt/Military Policy"

You can't prove it using science, the law, paperwork, or anything else

what is most likely is: you're wrong and digging your rabbit hole
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@Steel
...that get the same lip service
perhaps this will help explain
let's interject an anecdote about pump pressure and temperature for a moment - common to us both

We use regulators in the engines and pumps to limit impeller speed

This is important because if we cavitate the pump or build up too much heat, it blows the impellers and the pump is dead, which can have dire effects for the firefighter using the lines

so, we can see where the regulation is, right? and it's purpose?

but does it ever get exceeded or ignored?

absolutely

the USAF had to rewrite maintenance and storage reg's for WRM materials due to the ignorance the non-fire department mechanics on site had regarding specifics about the truck (faster or unregulated isn't always better)

IOW- someone ignorant of the science or its purpose wouldn't understand why the regulation is there and could make up a thousand reasons to ignore it

same above. You don't understand the additives purpose
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
So, articles like this have no bearing?

https://www.abc.n.../6583982

And the medical community putting out information reports such as:

http://www.scienc...shealth/

Or even:

https://www.atsdr...p121.pdf

with a partial statement of:
"Because JP-5, JP-8, and Jet A fuels are complex mixtures of both aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, exposure is typically measured by monitoring the total hydrocarbon concentration (THC) and the levels of certain aromatic substances, such as benzene,toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and naphthalene, that are present in jet fuels." (from above link)

and:
"For information concerning the possible toxicity associated with exposure to some of the individual components of jet fuels, the reader is referred to the ATSDR toxicological profiles on these compounds, for example benzene (ATSDR 2007a), toluene (ATSDR 2015b)..."
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel
articles about being "detrimentally affected through working with fuel and other chemicals" (first link) are not about additive burning, but rather about "hazardous contamination" (second link)

it even stated in the second link that it "summarizes toxic effects of chemicals as reported in medical journals and related reports"

the last link is mandated by EPA and ATSDR
The ATSDR toxicological profile succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for these toxic substances described therein
so, none of those links provides supporting evidence for "mixing certain chemical wastes into the jet fuel as a way to 'incinerate it at high altitude' " or waste management of toxins in fuel

.

what you're looking at in those links is the evolution of the regulations to protect people from pollution based upon new and documented evidence that is causally linked to the substances
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
And I most certainly DO understand the variety of additives, what and why they are used. I may be crazy, but not stupid.

A great number of those 'high octane fractions' just happen to be the same very nasty solvents like Benzene and Toluene, MEK and TCE etc. I certainly DO understand what goes into these things and also know there is a Profit Motive driving the whole thing.

That profit motive creates major holes in enforcement where the experts say "It HAS to be This Way" and then Congressmen gets assailed by their Donors who say to 'hold off on this' or 'can you exclude (X) from this set of regulations or there are ways to go around the rules by calling the material an 'additive' and say it is the only, or best or cheapest (take your pick) of alternatives.

You know Corporations and Govt/Military service as well as I do. Do they always tell you the truth? Is there ever money involved? Can people get rich selling poison? Can someone else get just as rich relabeling waste?
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
And even in the above referenced papers it shows govt interference, by way of delaying the regulation of certain chemicals based on Political Reasons, not ones of safety, but usually ones of Profit.

Come on stump, you are not stupid by any means, but are you actually backing the fairy tale of clean jet fuels and that the crap we can see in the air, while perhaps not the 'geo-engineering' type of 'chemtrail', this is the older complaint about jet fuels being the dirtiest and are almost toxic waste of the fuel industry anyways.

The "Regulations" that went into place were just politically formed and compromised guidelines on the limits on percentages in the fuel, not on tons of it allowed to be openly burned in an in-efficient high altitude incineration as 'fuel'.

There is a major compromise on human health for the use of aircraft with the present jet fuel mix, even without additives. The Compromises were political and financial with Human Health losing out to both.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel
I most certainly DO understand the variety of additives, what and why they are used. I may be crazy, but not stupid
you understand their effects, but not why they're used, otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing that they're added to burn off HAZ-MAT's
Come on stump, you are not stupid by any means
I'm just not buying your argument of incineration via aircraft because I know how life-threatening contaminated fuel can be in a flying aircraft, which is the foundation of your argument
and again
The genius of conspiracy theories is that you can't prove them wrong, and this is true for two reasons.

The first is that most conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on values other than science, and sometimes on fear. They are motivated to believe what they do, and unless those motivations change, it is unlikely they will be swayed by rational argument.

The second reason is that their logic is self-sealing, designed to be impermeable to external reasoning
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel
but are you actually backing the fairy tale of clean jet fuels
no, I am not
I am just not backing your argument of using toxic additives to incinerate waste toxins, which I stated more than once above
that the crap we can see in the air, while perhaps not the 'geo-engineering' type of 'chemtrail', this is the older complaint about jet fuels being the dirtiest and are almost toxic waste of the fuel industry anyways
and nowhere above do I argue that the additives aren't toxic or that they're not nasty sh*t

Again: Your argument started above with the foundational premise that the gov't is putting toxic additives in jet fuel to incinerate them

This is bullsh*t and you've not proven this argument yet except via super-duper-top-secret "believe me, I'm a trained professional" argument from self-perceived authority conspiracist ideation

see above -the last quote in my last post

Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
One of the above also references how the burn products of some of these fractions actually produce PCB's at the high altitude burn due to 'after burn chemistry' and quench rates of the exhaust gasses.

So no, I am not talking craziness or anything near. If you look deep into those papers, the more official you go, the more obfuscating legalese and science terms are added to lull the politicians the reports ultimately go to. Politicians are not scientists, and so lots of things can be slipped by them just the same as kids sneaking around adults, or vice versa.

But it became basic policy to use what was known to be toxic waste like spent industrial solvents as part of the mix for jet fuel, and relied on the combustion to deal with the toxicity.

The fact that it produced even more toxic by-products when burnt was buried in the details to the politicians. It is there, in writing that these things are there in the stated percentages, and were Hazardous Waste by definition.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
I stated specifically such things as the Benzene, Toluene and the formed PCBs, some of which are added to the stock directly from "Recycle Centers" for the disposal of contaminated Benzene, Toluene etc, and yes, it is incorporated into the jet fuels they sell.

The FACT that they put Regulations on it means it was addressed as Government and Military Policy. The papers you see are only the result of the reporting on those policies. THAT is a basic Fact, and yes, the dates on those policies are most often referred back to 1970, as a matter of fact.

And I WAS, Very Specifically warned and trained, in the Navy, concerning the specific and special dangers surrounding Jet Fuels, their toxicity and requirements for special handling as a Flammable Hazardous Toxic group of substances. But then, on a Sub Tender there are higher degrees of cautions than almost anywhere else in the military due to Submarine Environmental Controls and monitoring systems, and we HAD to be aware.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel
So no, I am not talking craziness or anything near. If you look deep into those papers, the more official you go, the more obfuscating legalese and science terms are added to lull the politicians the reports ultimately go to. Politicians are not scientists, and so lots of things can be slipped by them just the same as kids sneaking around adults, or vice versa
and yet you still can't point to a single reference or one of those legalese terms and show where it's gov't policy to eradicate toxins via jet incineration... sorry, but that is the definition of conspiracy craziness
But it became basic policy to use what was known to be toxic waste like spent industrial solvents as part of the mix for jet fuel
assumptoin based upon ignorance of flight characteristics, aircraft necessities, and engine performance requirements

introduction of waste would increase our flight accident records and death rate per miles travelled
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
They made heavy use of those stored chemical wastes once they were able to upgrade and mix em into "Jet Fuel" and found new uses for some of them as "Additives", which are certainly needed since other chemicals need to be neutralized or stabilized at least long enough to get thru the engines.

Those nasty stocks were used as things like 'Agent Orange' as the heavy PCB sprays were called, so the corporations had a way of getting rid of that for a time, and the contaminated solvents by the hundreds of thousands of barrels were a sudden pile of gold for the Hazardous Waste Disposal people when they were ALLOWED to mix it into the jet fuels.

That is the result you see of the papers, that is why the 70s and 80s air pollution spiked for a time, and now there are fewer of the Hazardous Wastes being produced, so there is not the same degree of it being done today, but things like spent toluene and benzene are certainly used, and the metals etc they are contaminated with.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel cont'd
some of which are added to the stock directly from "Recycle Centers" for the disposal of contaminated Benzene, Toluene etc
links/references or evidence that said waste was added for the purpose for disposal, please
The FACT that they put Regulations on it means it was addressed as Government and Military Policy
toxic waste of any kind was also addressed as a gov't and military policy, but that doesn't mean they're putting it in our food supply, so you can't argue that because there's a reg which was instigated about the same time as the environmental control laws that it is, therefore, proof of your conspiracy
And I WAS, Very Specifically warned and trained,
still not arguing about the toxicity of fuels

I'm stating that your claim of using waste in fuels for incineration in flight is bullsh*t
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel cont'd
They made heavy use of those stored chemical wastes
I will make a recommendation, but you won't like it:
1- get HAZ-MAT Technician trained
2- Go to Flight School and learn about aircraft flight characteristics, engine performance

it will open your eyes to the problems of your argument
and the contaminated solvents by the hundreds of thousands of barrels were a sudden pile of gold for the Hazardous Waste Disposal people when they were ALLOWED to mix it into the jet fuels
one last point: the military *used to use* jet fuel to incinerate all kinds of waste, right along with automotive fuels

however, they burned them in pits, barrels or waste management facilities (or, when they were allowed, in burn pits by the Fire Department to train)

They never, ever put contaminated fuels into an aircraft
you don't risk multi-million dollar (or billion dollar) craft with souls on board with contaminated fuels
ever!
period
full stop
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
The section and wording here, from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act from 1976:

"COMPARABLE FUELS (§261.4(a)(16))
Hazardous waste-derived fuels that are comparable to fossil fuels are excluded from
the definition of solid waste. These exempted fuels have legitimate energy value
and hazardous constituent concentrations similar to fossil fuels. Consequently, EPA
has classified such fuels as products, rather than wastes. The exclusion promotes
RCRA's resource recovery goals without creating a risk greater than that posed by
commonly used commercial fuels. Only liquid and gaseous hazardous waste-
derived fuels qualify for this exclusion."

This is the very section that gives airlines the ability to mix the toxic wastes from other industries, such as benzene and toluene and other 'spent' solvents, and call it "Jet Fuel", and in fact, JP-8 is a high benzene, toluene etc. waste added type fuel As Is, and on the book Toxic.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
As a matter of fact, Navy Firefighting training is better HazMat than you will ever see, we trained for full Nuclear, Biological or Chemical contamination amongst a huge number of materials. I was top of my class, easily. I payed attention and did all the side homework and little courses and trainings. I was high end specialist able to do Asbestos removal in just shut down nuclear reactor spaces, so with alpha, gamma and neutron spallation tracking on top of the asbestos controls, was my job.

You have No Idea the training I have. You yourself said you would not do shipboard firefighting. I was a few steps above just that, I was shipboard helo crash crew, Hoseman. I was Submarine environmental hazard trained, I was nuclear, chemical and biologically trained and trained and trained...and drilled, and sometimes we had the real shit happen.

That is when you know if you have it. I am one that heads TO fires, not a runner or a screaming alpha.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
Now Stump, are you going to argue about it any more now that I have handed you the Act, Section and Wording that I had made the basis of my statement on?

Or do I get the deserved apology from an other honorable fireman?
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
JP-4 is very heavy with Napthalene as well as being basically Kerosene. Has the Naptha for extra POP and gets rid of part of that disposed chemical.

As you can see, the chemical and fuel companies had a big hand in writing the legislation, or at least applied a heavy thumb to the scales with 'campaign donations'. They got a way to sell what was otherwise a very expensive material to dispose of, very hazardous, and if it can be burnt in a jet for fuel, Hey, win-win, right?

For the money people, not so much for us.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel
This is the very section that gives airlines ...and call it "Jet Fuel"
Ok, this will take a couple of posts

for starters: you still don't comprehend the purpose of additives in Jet fuel. I'm going to have to ignore this because you're definitely not reading the linked referenced material

so...

two, EPA final rule on the federal registry states
EPA is removing provisions at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(16) ... related to comparable fuels, and revising 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(i) by removing gasification from the list of specific petroleum refining processes into which oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials may be inserted
None of the regulations you've quoted prove that the additives in jet fuel were toxic waste removal tactics - so this leads to exploring the basis for 40 CFR §261.4(a)(16)
The rule provided that fuels made from materials identified as hazardous wastes were excluded from the RCRA definition of solid waste if...
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel
This is the very section that gives airlines ...and call it "Jet Fuel"
Ok, this will take a couple of posts

for starters: you still don't comprehend the purpose of additives in Jet fuel. I'm going to have to ignore this because you're definitely not reading the linked referenced material

so...

two, EPA final rule on the federal registry states
EPA is removing provisions at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(16) ... related to comparable fuels, and revising 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(i) by removing gasification from the list of specific petroleum refining processes into which oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials may be inserted
None of the regulations you've quoted prove that the additives in jet fuel were toxic waste removal tactics - so this leads to exploring the basis for 40 CFR §261.4(a)(16)
The rule provided that fuels made from materials identified as hazardous wastes were excluded from the RCRA definition of solid waste if...
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel cont'd
solid waste if, as generated or after treatment and blending, they were sufficiently comparable to commercial fossil fuels for which they were substituted with respect to levels of hazardous constituents and physical properties that affect fuel burning efficiency, such as viscosity and heating value. Because the fuels, as burned, would contain contaminants no greater than commercial fossil fuels, and were otherwise indistinguishable from the fossil fuels that would be burned in their place, EPA found that the comparable fuels would pose no greater risk than commercial fuels when burned, and could be legitimately classified as non-waste fuels rather than as solid and hazardous waste fuels
so again, this directly contradicts your reasoning that the classification and CFR linked was to incinerate waste in jet fuel

no one ever uses contaminated jet fuel in an aircraft with souls on board

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel cont'd
EPA determined that oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials, even though otherwise identified as hazardous wastes under RCRA if discarded, are not in fact discarded and not solid wastes if they are inserted into a gasification unit located at a petroleum refinery to produce synthesis gas.[3] Therefore, they were excluded from hazardous waste regulation.
The Agency took the position that comparable fuels were not being "discarded" within the meaning of the definition of solid waste in RCRA section 1004(27), 42 U.S.C. 6903(27). RCRA defines solid wastes, for relevant purposes, as materials that have been discarded in the plain sense of the term, meaning that the material has been thrown away, disposed of or abandoned.
so the rule you chose is about eliminating contaminated fuels and discarding waste, not about burning it in aircraft

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel cont'd
Navy Firefighting training is better HazMat than you will ever see, we trained for full Nuclear, Biological or Chemical contamination amongst a huge number of materials
1- irrelevant
2- appeal to self-percieved authority
3- I was trained in the exact same way, and I've trained Navy Firefighters. it's still irrelevant
You have No Idea the training I have. You yourself said you would not do shipboard firefighting
actually, I have a pretty good idea, but don't assume that I won't do shipboard because I've never done it (though I've never done it on the water because I've never had to be stationed on a ship, I do have experience with HAZ-MAT and Shipboard firefighting in a port as well as other places- commercial, civilian and military)
I am one that heads TO fires
Hello! https://en.wikipe..._captain

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@Steel cont'd
Or do I get the deserved apology from an other honorable fireman?
I can't apologize for you, Bro... You don't comprehend the legislation

You're assuming that it's written in order to facilitate burning toxic waste in aircraft
no, it's not
It was written to facilitate disposal of toxic fuels, gasified fuels and contaminated fuels from spills, runways, etc. the wording is predominantly to classify certain toxic fuels regarding their disposal, which was predominantly at refineries

It was also being abused by refineries which is why it was taken to court
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 755 F. 3d 1010

this is listed in the federal register and national archives
https://www.feder...ion-rule

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@Steel cont'd
As you can see, the chemical and fuel companies had a big hand in writing the legislation, or at least applied a heavy thumb to the scales with 'campaign donations'
unless there is evidence, this is just more conspiracist ideation
as in
The genius of conspiracy theories is that you can't prove them wrong, and this is true for two reasons:
1- that most conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on values other than science, and sometimes on fear.
2- that their logic is self-sealing, designed to be impermeable to external reasoning
you're wrong about the regs because you read it with conspiracy in mind

read the federal register
Hey, win-win, right?
you do know far, far, far more of that product is used by manufacturing plants than by refineries and fuel companies, right?
https://triumphgr...poration
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
Lord knows you are not a lawyer, there are loopholes they threw 747s through.

I have given you act, section, subsection and the exact paragraph that says THE EPA IS RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN CLASSES OF HAZARDOUS WASTES AS FUEL rather than Waste, as it had previously been classified.

Note, I am not saying they are using paint filed thinners and crap, but it IS Benzene Toluene MEK, Kerosene, and all the other that are flammable so they can go into JP-8.

Look at the materials list on JP-8, look at the level warnings they give, reactivity, toxicity and handling hazard.

Now tell me that chemical mix is not a mass of toxins to begin with, and nasty ones they do not allow disposal in the ground, they HAVE to be incinerated. The fact they sell it as Fuel is telling.

And it is exactly what the word was is that they were going to start putting Hazardous Waste products into Jet Fuels to incinerate.

I have handed you a handful of places to see it. Ignorance is on YOUR shoulder.
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
You went to a totally different section Stump, that is talking about gasification in the middle of the refining process and combustion that takes place in the fractioning still.

You are reading it wrong. Look at that specific wording.

'Consequently, EPA has classified such fuels as products, rather than wastes.'

In 85 their notes in the Federal Register( https://www.epa.g...64_1.pdf ) state thus:

We acknowledge that we have previously (see § 261.6(a)(1), 50 FR 665 (January 4, 1985)) termed hazardous wastes that are recycled as "recyclable materials". We continue to believe, however, that hazardous waste burned for energy recovery should be termed "hazardous waste fuel" for a number of reasons. The warning label provision of section3004(r) of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) requires that an invoice or
bill of sale for hazardous waste fuel bear a statement that the fuel contains hazardous waste.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel
Benzene Toluene MEK, Kerosene, and all the other that are flammable so...
and those additives have a purpose
that purpose is *not* what you claimed - to be burned as waste in jet fuel
This is best demonstrated by the fact that MEK, Kerosene and Toluene are all used in manufacturing aluminium parts by workers who only wear gloves (and maybe a paper mask - unless that's changed since I watched it happen at Chem-Fab, a Triumph group corp)
I have handed you a handful of places to see it. Ignorance is on YOUR shoulder
the ignorance is because you assume it's put in the fuel to incinerate waste chemicals

it's not

that is prove already above, but you can also check

14CFR:
33.7(b)(2) and (3)
23.1521(d)
Appendix G23.3(a)(4)
Appendix H25.3(a)(4)
Appendix A27.3(a)(4)
Appendix A29.3(a)(4)

FAA:
ANE-2006-33.7-4-1
ANE-2010-33.7-5A
AC 23.1521-1B and -2
AC 33.47-1
AC 91-33A

ASTM International Subcommittee D.02.J
D910
D1655
D4054

there is much more
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2018
The fact that NOW they have it so sanitized that the whole idea that jet fuel (while everyone knows it burns so is dangerous) is actually that Naptha, Benzene Toluene MEK and over 2000 other chemicals.

I DO know what additive do, could probably show you the chemical reasoning for each one if we sat down and had the data in front of us, and it would not take long to convince you that no, I am not suffering from a recto-cranial inversion, that the information that I gave IS Correct AND Verifiable.

Look up JP-8 and the dangers list and what it contains.

The big businesses were worried about it being BILLED as Hazardous Waste, and since Incineration is THE approved method of disposal, High Altitude Incineration of certain chemical stocks was written into law as a way to reclaim, reclassify and give airlines and the military a way to get rid of toxic waste by using it as fuel. And gave tax incentives for it.

You read the wrong court case.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel cont'd
We continue to believe, however, that hazardous waste burned for energy recovery should be termed "hazardous waste fuel" for a number of reasons
this just proved my point

the doc isn't about additives being inserted for the purpose of burning excess waste toxic chemicals, pet your claim

it's about how to dispose of hazardous waste and it's reclassification

I said that above

And nowhere am I claiming that aviation fuels aren't toxic, nor am I claiming they don't have sh*t in them

I am telling you that you're wrong about the gov't policy to dispose of toxic waste by burning it in jet fuel

jets and aircraft need certain types of fuel for certain types of performance
none of that proves you're correct about gov't policies, nor does it prove the conspiracy you claim
you are not a lawyer,
nope
but I have far, far more experience dealing with this than you do, both as a Captain, Firefighter, and as a fed (EPA, ADEQ)
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
All of the stuff NOW shows the updated, sanitized and much cleaner sounding set of laws and statutes.

I showed you the dirty work that went on in crafting that act, and the fact, FACT, that they started using jets to dispose of this stuff in the 70's I have handed you ample proof. If you want to ignore it, or naysay, that is on you.

I am giving out hard data, you are now just throwing a flurry of numbers etc. because you were PROVEN Wrong WRONG W R O N G. And still cannot, ever, admit it.

Funny, I admit my mistakes when I make em. And this time has been no mistake. YOU are behind the times, you apparently never heard that news nor come across it later.

The subsection plainly stated that those highly flammable liquids be re-classified from Waste to Fuel. Of course it is all 'purified' as much as they can, the materials are reclaimed thru distillation and then made fuel from. It is not like it is straight from the dry cleaner's.

But JP-8 IS toxic Waste.
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
It would also be remarkably inexpensive, at an average of around $2 to 2.5 billion per year

Hehe, cheaper than the Paris accord for the USA which would be closer to 1 trillion per year.
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2018
One of the reasons they went to using the recycled solvents (purified through re-distillation) is because they were being phased out of use in other areas where they had long been used.

In the early 70's we had Gas Crisis, in late 70s we lost access to a specific light, sweet crude oil out of Iran when they Revolted, and the stocks they were refining their fuels from were heavier crude without some of the lighter aromatics. These, especially when cracked, burnt too hot, so they added toluene to the mix to cool the burn temperature.

Now they ensure a specific amount of 'PAH's, or the aromatics like Benzene and toluene from the readily available disposed waste, it just needed cleaning up, a little re-distilling, mix with kerosene and a few other slick ingredients from 55 gal drums of waste because we had laying around to lighten the heavy crude fraction kerosene we are able to get now.

Recycle and Reuse were the words of the day, and they did. Politics, money and reality.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2018
@steel
and the fact, FACT, that they started using jets to dispose of this stuff in the 70's I have handed you ample proof
no
you showed where the gov wrote a disposal law for HAZ-MAT: you *assumed* that it was for your nefarious purposes
you are now just throwing a flurry of numbers etc
actually, those are the laws/regs referenced in your links above and at the DOT-FAA site regarding aviation fuels

those are the regs that prove you're wrong
you were PROVEN Wrong WRONG W R O N G. And still cannot, ever, admit it.
Conspiracist Ideation, as noted already
Funny, I admit my mistakes when I make em
as do I
However, you've chosen not to see the evidence proving you wrong about the incineration of waste via jet fuels

more to the point: if you are correct, why specifically manufacture the waste? your "Benzene Toluene MEK, Kerosene" are all manufactured still today and used heavily in industry

kinda makes your argument redonkulous, considering
frflyer
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2018
"the Paris accord for the USA which would be closer to 1 trillion per year."

Hogwash
Anonym692504
not rated yet Nov 26, 2018
My Testimony

I am happy today that i got a loan from this legitimate company after many years of been financial down and also got scammed in the process until i met this great man who helped me with a loan of $53,000 and i will advice all loan seekers to contact this company on: For Urgent Response very much available send me messages or Email: franklymiller@aol.com
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
While they are produced, once 'spent' they are chemically no longer usable, they have gone to a form which is no longer compatible with the original use, the fact that the petroleum we get now has very little of those light fractions, so they are added back in fro being 'recycled' and it IS toxic waste, the entire manifest of JP-8 IS toxic Materials, much worse than JP-4 or earlier versions.

I told you absolute truth, including the news that was ON TV at the time, it was actually a major story for about a week. Then it went silent and you never hear the terms Hazardous waste being used as Fuel. They do NOT WANT to tell firefighters that they are doing this because it is admittedly freaking stupid. It puts everybody involved with the fueling process into a much higher contaminated state with known neurotoxic chemicals.

And you believe all the white sheets from the Fed, look instead at the policies that MADE those regulations and what they SPECIFICALLY ALLOW. (2B Ctd)
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
Those regulations specifically allowed the addition of known high potency carcinogens, from other industries that have spent their usefulness, been re-refined with the heavy crude lacking such fractions and CREATED a fuel comprised of almost 50% hazardous waste, which is the allowable limit set by that act. It allowed them to turn their massive stocks of contaminated thinners, solvents and other petroleum wastes and as long as it met the right balance, they can sell it as Jet Fuel.

Many of the chemical wastes used were outlawed for their prior use, such as the changeover from Perchloride to safer chems for drycleaning.

The wastes were in rotting 55 gal drums stacked in yards, there was a massive heyday and selling off of those chemical stocks and getting em turned back into something they could sell rather than be fined by as a Superfund Cleanup Site.

This is something they have tried to cover for legal reasons, but the history is still there.

I have no need to lie.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
@steel
I told you absolute truth, including the news that was ON TV at the time, it was actually a major story for about a week
[sic]
then where is the archived story link?
once 'spent' they are chemically no longer usable
and again: you do not randomly incinerate HAZ-MAT waste in jets because
1- souls on board
2- aeroplanes are expensive
if money is the end result, and people are getting rich doing this, then you don't piss $$ down the drain by f*cking up aeroplanes and engines - it's not logical, nor is it cost productive. it's a negative return
And you believe all the white sheets from the Fed, look instead at the policies that MADE those regulations and what they SPECIFICALLY ALLOW
trying to get me to convert to your conspiracy theory?

Sorry, but I told you above: the only way your argument makes any sense is if I buy the conspiracy
That isn't logical without evidence
the evidence you gave proves me correct about disposal/waste regs

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
@steel cont'd
Those regulations specifically allowed the addition of known high potency carcinogens, from other industries that have spent their usefulness
stop there
they allow the additives and reclassify how to dispose of said toxic chemicals
full stop

you have yet to prove that said additives are:
1- from other industries that have spent their usefulness
2- almost 50% hazardous waste
3- the allowable limit [of HAZ waste in jet fuel] set by that act
4- This is something they have tried to cover for legal reasons
5- the history is still there
I have no need to lie
I think you're misremembering combined with your lack of experience (in law, regs, etc), then influenced by your conspiracist ideation

note that those 5 points above are important

You accept that it's real because it's what you believe
you've not actually provided the evidence to prove it, however

think of this like a court case or a criminal investigation and present as such
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
This PDF, on history of fuels from JPL, while they do not go into the exact formulae, they detail the fact that due to certain types of sweet light high fraction crude we could no longer get from Iran had to be made up for with thicker, less productive crude, and that chemicals like toluene were added to control, and cool down, the burn rate. They further state that with the sub-grade crude oil that they have to supplement the materials with the PAHs like Toluene and Benzene.

It takes only a minimal reading between the lines to see that they specifically started using the massive, rotting stacks of hazardous wastes, and repurposed it, which was half of the RCRA, Resource Conservation and RECOVERY Act. The purpose of which, as well as controlling the contaminants, gave ways to dispose of it, Incineration thru jet engines was one of the easy ways to use the stuff, when we needed the fuel for military as well as Commercial services.

JP-8 is a neurotoxin soup.
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
If you do not believe that the Fuel Companies, Politicians and Military conspired to do this, then you are far, FAR stupider than you think you are, and have misplaced any wisdom you once may have had.

That Law gave them the legal clearance to use the materials in that fashion, and they did.

Look at the neurotoxicology reports on those fuels.

History of jet fuels: (forgot to enter it in last post)
https://apps.dtic...6752.pdf
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
Section VI is particularly important as it describes the challenges of moving from the light sweet crude to the heavier, less productive petroleum products such as tar sands oil and shale distillates which require the adding in of the lighter fraction as Benzenes, toluene and a whole host of other, waste products repurposed to Jet Fuel.

Argue away as you like with your head in the sand, I happen to know better, I KNOW how bad the Corporations can and will be, given half a chance. This whole setup, the Military burning chemical wastes was one of the reasons for the whole RCRA in the first place, as a way to CONTROL these (Proprietary) fuel mixes and make sure that what chemicals DID go into them were properly incinerated in their time in the jet flame. High Volatile PAHs that had been phased out of use due to toxicity, as in the Benzene, toluene (which the history specifically talks about adding as a fuel temperature conditioner) and other known neurotoxins.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
@steel cont'd

you're making assumptions
take MEK

https://www.icis....process/

https://www.ameri...com/MEK/

that isn't used waste

it is purposely manufactured to specifications

this would be especially true as an additive in jet fuel
(UK DEF std 91-91 demonstrative of the restrictions - has NATO callouts)
https://www.scrib...-Issue-7

check out this thread: https://www.metab...e.t1041/

Additives may be included in aviation fuels to improve fuel performance - generally by eliminating undesirable effects - or to meet specific requirements of certain aircraft or airline operators. They are added in quantities that are often only measurable in parts per million
https://www.shell...ive.html

Anonym692504
not rated yet Nov 26, 2018
My Testimony

I am happy today that i got a loan from this legitimate company after many years of been financial down and also got scammed in the process until i met this great man who helped me with a loan of $53,000 and i will advice all loan seekers to contact this company on: For Urgent Response very much available send me messages or Email: franklymiller@aol.com
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
@steel
then you are far, FAR stupider than you think you are, and have misplaced any wisdom you once may have had
so, if I don't buy your conspiracy which you've never once been able to actually provide evidence for, and you clearly state things like "It takes only a minimal reading between the lines to see", then I am the stupid one?

You're the one making the assumption by "a minimal reading between the lines" which you've provided absolutely *no* evidence to support

that meets the exacting requirements to be called "delusional"
That Law gave them the legal clearance to use the materials
what page of the PDF allows for waste products to be arbitrarily used and burned off , etc?

spell it out
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
Actually, in your refusal to look at this in an actual logical, non-kneejerk fashion, and in taking the Government and Corporation's Word that they are doing everything legal (as written) and aboveboard (as long as you understand the loopholes in the legislation and what it was DESIGNED to do, use those chemical stocks) then you are actively participating in the covering up of this information and mis-informing other people. Makes you a liar, whether you intend that or not, stump.

Those products amply found in Jet Fuels are major carcinogens and waste that was made into Fuel by an act of Congress and the president's signature. One quick motion of a pen and suddenly millions of tons of rotting toxic waste was able to be repurposed, some as jet fuels, some as land-based energy production. But it gave the fuel people permission to Retask these chemicals, if 'properly mixed', into jet fuels.

This is history beyond doubt, just takes deep research as there are legal issues.
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
Since you have a very high specific gravity, here is a repeat, Please look, and understand the FULL set of possibilities when reading the below, as if YOU had ownership of those toxic materials yourself, and had this law appear before you:

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act from 1976:

"COMPARABLE FUELS (§261.4(a)(16))
Hazardous waste-derived fuels that are comparable to fossil fuels are excluded from
the definition of solid waste. These exempted fuels have legitimate energy value
and hazardous constituent concentrations similar to fossil fuels. Consequently, EPA
has classified such fuels as products, rather than wastes. The exclusion promotes
RCRA's resource recovery goals without creating a risk greater than that posed by
commonly used commercial fuels. Only liquid and gaseous hazardous waste-
derived fuels qualify for this exclusion."

What part of "Hazardous waste-derived fuels that are comparable to fossil fuels" dont you get? Burn Toluene in jets to dispose
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
They make the distinction of toxic waste that matches comparable liquid fuel, and thus can call it fuel, and is thus a PRODUCT (Jet Fuel) rather than the toxic waste materials that it started as.

Since it has been reclassified as a Product, Jet Fuel, it is sold and used as such, no matter it's original extreme and continued toxicity, it is destined to be combusted and therefore is classed as a Fuel.

Most of the act goes over how to deal with other solid wastes and the details. But that one simple line: Hazardous Waste-derived fuels that are comparable to fossil fuels are excluded from the definition of (Hazardous) Solid Waste.

The Renamed it from Hazardous Waste to Fuel because they are already petroleum sourced distillates, which must be at least 50% of the fuel. It is that RECOVERY cachet in the title of the act that gives the best clue.

Since incineration has been determined to be the Best Disposal Practice, that is exactly what they do. Get a clue!
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
And, most of the Govt Paperwork before 1999 is NOT all archived on Online where it is accessible. Much of the pertinent info will be found in specific manufacturer's 'secret' formulations and sources for those products, which they are very much close-mouthed about still, for obvious legal reasons. They are selling a mix of known carcinogenic, toxic and neurological toxins as JP-8, just the majority of it is kerosene with all these 'repurposed' conditioners of various sorts. Some 2000 different chemicals plus.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
@steel
Those products amply found in Jet Fuels are major carcinogens and waste
not arguing otherwise

I'm saying that the only "evidence" you have requires the suspension of logic, rational thought and requires me to believe in your conspiracy to accept, like anti-AGW arguments
then you are actively participating in the covering up of this information and mis-informing other people. Makes you a liar, whether you intend that or not, stump
The genius of conspiracy theories is that you can't prove them wrong, and this is true for two reasons.

The first is that most conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on values other than science, and sometimes on fear. They are motivated to believe what they do, and unless those motivations change, it is unlikely they will be swayed by rational argument.

The second reason is that their logic is self-sealing, designed to be impermeable to external reasoning- October 6, 2014 by Peter Ellerton [edited for length - Cap]
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
@steel cont'd
And, most of the Govt Paperwork before 1999 is NOT all archived on Online where it is accessible
bullsh*t again
not only did I link some above, but here are two more you can use
https://www.archi...ubs.html

https://catalog.g...42563332

I've had them release info FOIA in digital format in the past, so there isn't any excuse

the US Gov't loves its paperwork and lives to create more: it's the backbone (and bane) of a bureaucracy

more importantly, if you want to present a case of "fact", then you have to present something that is not "read between the lines" or based upon the ASSumption of conspiracy first and foremost

that isn't science in any form, be it anti-AGW, eu cult, aether wave from zeph, pheromones from JVK or any religious-like belief.
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
Fine, be it on your own head to remain ignorant, and, sadly, more stupid than I thought.

I gave you law, verse and paragraph, I showed you the rational, I showed you the facts on the ground as they were at the time, and the fact that people will always work to profit off from selling some waste product from another process is ancient history.

Fact is, you are clinging strongly to your denialism and Refuse to admit these facts that the Govt has been burning this crap all around you for decades, and lied about it directly to you in your position as Capt.

Do you think you are the only officer ever not lied to about said products? History shows otherwise. History shows when they started specifically adding Toluene to the fuels to control burn temp. Other wastes they repurposed into degreasers, surfacants, anti-freeze and anti-microbial as well as anti-corrosion factors and additives.

Dont be so ignorant, you surely know better.
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
The whole idea of Conspiracy Theory was made popular by the CIA once they found out that their Proposed Operation Mockingbird was let out. They coined the term "Conspiracy Theorist" specifically to be a derisive term to make the person investigating this very real Conspiracy with the Press, to sound like they were crackpots.

The RICO act specifically deal with such Conspiracies as 'Rackets'. Just a difference in terms.

Conspiracies exist at many different levels, from conspiring with your buddies to steal a beer from dad's fridge to Fuel Companies holding tight to their formulations, out of damn reasonable legal fear of discovery.

But they operate under the cover of Law, which specifically, in that wording, allows chemical toxic wastes to be used as fuels, and one such use IS Jet Fuels, and thus they 'dispose of' this toxic waste by combustion. An OLD Conspiracy that the money still flows from, has been modified, but holds true still.
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
And nothing you have posted has disproven my claim. I DID Provide Act, Section, Subsection and Paragraph.

Nothing you have posted has disproven my basic, initial claim, that they are disposing of toxic waste by reclassifying it as Jet Fuel.

Now you just want to go on about conspiracy and try to make me look nuts, which would be typical if you were an industry plant as well. Like FrFlyer kneejerked with.

Instead it just makes you look like a dumb stick in the mud when even shown proof, you have to debate it. I gave you the info you asked for, that you deny it is all to your own detriment, not mine. It makes you look like you are very willing to lie to back your point, when I have been forward in putting those papers, and explaining what they mean in clear English. The fact that we have such kneejerk reaction TO the terms "Toxic Waste" is a product of those time, and Love Canal.

They found a way to dispose of the crap, and profit at the same time. Proven!
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
Modern News stories even point out that "Jet Fuel" is a contaminant commonly found in human tissues and mothers milk. The below story from the NYTimes gives a good accounting of the regulatory hurdles and mindsets of the corporations in question:

https://www.nytim...ite.html

And yet stump wants to paint a nice rosy perfect picture where nobody ever re-uses that nasty ass crap...just like lead.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
@steel
And nothing you have posted has disproven
you're wrong

had you actually made a rational argument from the evidence you would be able to quote specific lines that spell out your argument instead of vaguely waving the hands at [x] and saying "read between the lines"

as evidence of your epic failure and conspiracist ideation
It takes only a minimal reading between the lines to see

If you do not believe that the Fuel Companies, Politicians and Military conspired to do this, then you are far, FAR stupider than you think you are, and have misplaced any wisdom you once may have had

Argue away as you like with your head in the sand, I happen to know better,

Actually, in your refusal to look at this in an actual logical, non-kneejerk fashion, and ...you are actively participating in the covering up

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it

be it on your own head to remain ignorant, and, sadly, more stupid than I thought
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
@steel
Now you just want to go on about conspiracy and try to make me look nuts
Actually, I am doing nothing of the sort
You're the one who is making yourself look nuts

When you say
I DID Provide Act, Section, Subsection and Paragraph
yet you can't point to any specifics, then present a tangible piece of evidence showing where "waste" was being burned in jet fuel, then...

also note: most additives are put in the fuel in parts per million, as noted in FAA, EPA, MIL-SPEC, (UK) DEF-Spec,NATO and commercial manufacturers specifications, so that means your "disposal" idea is absolutely ludicrous considering the sheer volume these chemicals are produced in (see link above)

you're making yourself look bad, bro. not me

I am just pointing out your argument is nonsensical and requires one suspend logic, science, reason and believe solely in your conspiracy to accept

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
@steel
Modern News stories even point out that "Jet Fuel" is a contaminant commonly found in human tissues and mothers milk
and because you keep wanting to push an emotional argument that isn't related, I will use small words:
I
NEVER
said
jet fuel
was
*not*
toxic

Your argument that it's manifesting in breast milk is your attempt to skew the reader into accepting your conspiracy, so it comes back to...

"The genius of conspiracy theories is that you can't prove them wrong, and this is true for two reasons.

The first is that most conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on values other than science, and sometimes on fear. They are motivated to believe what they do, and unless those motivations change, it is unlikely they will be swayed by rational argument.

The second reason is that their logic is self-sealing, designed to be impermeable to external reasoning" - October 6, 2014 by Peter Ellerton [edited for length - Cap]

Your argument is emotional
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
@steel last
They found a way to dispose of the crap, and profit at the same time. Proven!
except that, if you read the specs (FAA, EPA, MIL-SPEC, (UK) DEF-Spec,NATO and commercial manufacturers specifications), it is "disposed of" in parts per million

so, if the current dropping market of MEK is still producing nearly 1.9 million tonnes ( https://indianpet...ekreport ) and the US lead the market in bulk production in the past, lets just assume that the US produced 1 million tonnes in a decade (lowballing it here)

how long do you think it would take to burn off that 1 million tonnes including it as an additive when it's only in parts per million?

.

.

when you answer that question you will see why the tactic is redonkulous and silly, and why I'm not buying into your conspiracy theory
Anonym692504
not rated yet Nov 26, 2018
My Testimony

I am happy today that i got a loan from this legitimate company after many years of been financial down and also got scammed in the process until i met this great man who helped me with a loan of $53,000 and i will advice all loan seekers to contact this company on: For Urgent Response very much available send me messages or Email: franklymiller@aol.com
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
If you would check out this pdf:
https://apps.dtic...5160.pdf

And it stating that:
Since jet fuels are specified on the basis of performance instead of composition, there may be significant differences in the contents of the individual components between jet fuels from various sources and batches.

And that was in 2008, with this report looking into the neurotoxicology of JP-8.

But check out Pg 33. Nice list, and the American fuels show higher levels of Nasty crud than do the Dutch, at the time.

US Military Fuel Production in the 70's was a wide open game, the rules and regulations that went into place put LIMITS on the crap they were already putting into the fuel cycle, but what it did was Codified the amounts of the stuff that they can get rid of that way, and for some of these products, when they talk about 25% Aromatics and 75% Parafin/Naptha combination that is JP-8.

To Be Continued
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
It is largely a matter that any chemicals that once were used widely, and banned, are STILL in those refined fuel fractions, they just no longer separate them out for individual use.

The chemicals were banned, and stocks labeled Hazardous Waste, to be disposed. Most got used in industrial furnace type settings, but the high volatility, super light and very flammable fractions were then LEFT IN the the jet fuel mixes, even though they would have been Hazardous Materials themselves. JP-8 is neurotoxic.

And that is the very point I was making, they were allowed to leave those (otherwise illegal to use) hydrocarbons, alcohols and alkanes, cyclohexanes, benezenes and toluene.

The law I pointed out, section and verse, happens to be the one that authorized and set the standards for the use of those materials in the fuel. It specifically gives the authority to use materials previously declared toxic hazardous waste as additives and constituents of jet fuels.

Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act from 1976:

"COMPARABLE FUELS (§261.4(a)(16))
Hazardous waste-derived fuels that are comparable to fossil fuels are excluded from
the definition of solid waste. These exempted fuels have legitimate energy value
and hazardous constituent concentrations similar to fossil fuels. Consequently, EPA
has classified such fuels as products, rather than wastes. The exclusion promotes
RCRA's resource recovery goals without creating a risk greater than that posed by
commonly used commercial fuels. Only liquid and gaseous hazardous waste-
derived fuels qualify for this exclusion."

Once you read:
https://apps.dtic...5160.pdf

Come back and tell me that the govt knew what was in these mixes if they had to TEST em since the Oil Co's would not give up proprietary information lest they be sued for massive pollution. Even though it was authorized by Congress and the President, it was shaky legal ground. Leaves us screwed.
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
And that is just the USA, Consider 2nd and 3rd world countries where the Governments are not so strict. As long as the fuel meets the specs they do not care how it was made, or what the feedstocks were, they Now have JP-8 or Jet-A for you to buy, meets spec, but don't ask the refinery to to give you an assay on the feedstocks, they will just direct you to the finished product.
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
The article here:
https://ntrs.nasa...0297.pdf

Talks about the needs for changing aircraft parts and testing needed for the Broadened Fuel Standards from the year before.

You Should know how the Govt can be so good about being up front about all it's information, it IS all there, as long as you make the correct inferences from the information they give you and all the wiggle room on words that Military Lawyers, and their CorpRat Brothers, can do to any sort of document. The information is there, 25% aromatics 75% Naptha/Paraffin, with a NASTY breakdown when you get to the amounts of toluene, benzene and the like.

I said they expanded fuel regulations to include previously Hazard classed substances as basic ingredients, as allowed by the RCRA-1976
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
@steel
And that is the very point I was making, they were allowed to leave those (otherwise illegal to use) hydrocarbons, alcohols and alkanes, cyclohexanes, benezenes and toluene
you have made this point over and over, but it's still not the same thing as the claim I quoted from you that, and I quote
they would started mixing certain chemical wastes into the jet fuel as a way to 'incinerate it at high altitude' with our military craft and passenger fleets as a way to get rid of the stocks of such things as sulfur contaminated benzenes and PCBs
this is an entirely different claim that I stated was bullsh*t, and it is bullsh*t

like I said: if they wrote the law/regs for the purpose of " 'incinerate [-ing] it at high altitude' with our military craft and passenger fleets as a way to get rid of the stocks" then, considering the PPM content of the fuel, it's highly inefficient, cost prohibitive and failed epically

And I've repeatedly pointed that out, mind
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
@steel cont'd
Come back and tell me that the govt knew what was in these mixes if they had to TEST em since the Oil Co's would not give up proprietary information lest they be sued for massive pollution
the toxicity of jet fuel has not been debated by me, so I don't know why you keep reiterating it or pointing out that it's toxic

it hasn't changed my mind about your false claim of incineration to reduce stocks
*millions* of tonnes of MEK alone were produced here in the US, and that is just one of the additives!

the additives are mostly measured in PPM's!

just do the math, bro!
they do not care how it was made
redirection again
it's not relevant
What was important was what was in it and that it met NATO and other specifications

and that is still not the topic I challenged you about above

there is no logical way you can claim the conspiracy you are talking about regarding the purposeful incineration of HAZ waste via jet fuel if it's present in PPM's
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2018
@steel
You Should know how the Govt can be so good about ...it's information, it IS all there... they give you and all the wiggle room on words that Military Lawyers, and their CorpRat Brothers, can do to any sort of document
I know
I have over 35 years experience digging through said crap

it just doesn't say what you want it to say regarding your claims in your first post

I think you got confused about what they said
They likely said that the toxins in the fuel burned off at altitude and wasn't a threat to people, and I can see them saying that in either MIL news or even national news... but they never once stated that they are using jet fuel to burn HAZ waste, especially considering the amounts measured in the fuel

it's just not feasible
and you haven't provided any evidence to support that claim
anywhere on this thread

period

and I've reiterated this point more than a few times, but you keep going back to irrelevant and other arguments
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2018
Actually, the EPA banned a whole bunch of chemicals for civilian use, the Distilleries had to get rid of their product somehow, that is what the Wide Cut fuels is about, it has a much lower flash point than before, with the leaving in of the Aromatics which were previously distilled out and used for Civilian and Military Products, when those Civ products were banned, the Govt demanded that the Oil Companies re-use those chemical stocks, blending them back into the fuel mixes they were taken from. That is where the original synthoil came from, recombined hydrocarbon waste with fresh run kerosene.

The Chemicals were banned for other use, but where they incinerate in jet engines, it was decided that for reclamation purposed that these chemicals would be sold as Jet Fuel rather than trying to dispose in other methods.

The RCRA REQUIRES the Reuse of those chemicals: Read this critter, is the Basis of the Law and sterile acts. (tbcontinued)
antigoracle
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
I have over 35 years experience digging through said crap

There he goes again. The StumPid jackass enjoying the sound of his braying.
Well, no one can argue against him knowing crap. Now, he's soiling the forum with the crap between his ears. LMAO

Hey StumPid, could you please find a SINGLE pal reviewed "study", from your AGW Cult, that CONCLUSIVELY show anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for even one of the doom and gloom claims they make.
Thanks.
antigoracle
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
I have over 35 years experience digging through said crap

There he goes again. The StumPid jackass enjoying the sound of his braying.
Well, no one can argue against him knowing crap. Now, he's soiling the forum with the crap between his ears. LMAO

Hey StumPid, could you please find a SINGLE pal reviewed "study", from your AGW Cult, that CONCLUSIVELY show anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for even one of the doom and gloom claims they make.
Thanks.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
@steel
ctually, the EPA banned a whole bunch of chemicals for civilian use, the Distilleries had to get rid of their product somehow, that is what the Wide Cut fuels is about
and this is where we have the problem

Ya can't go from "the EPA wrote a law" to "that law means the gov't has a program to get rid of HAZ waste via jet fuel"

ya still don't have evidence for the claim

IF:
the law reclassifies the products which can be used as additives for purposes of disposal
AND
the regs for use limit those additive amounts in jet fuel to a measurement that is usually in parts per million
THEN
your claim makes no sense as written
The RCRA REQUIRES the Reuse of those chemicals
you're making the assumption that because the law wants "beneficial reuse" then this is proof of your argument

it isn't
it's about disposal, containment, cleanup, authorities, classification and recycling etc

Nowhere in the law does it state that the gov't will eliminate HAZ waste in jet fuel
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2018
@idiot f*ckwad illiterate lying POS troll antigor
Hey StumPid, could you please find a SINGLE pal reviewed "study", from your AGW Cult, that CONCLUSIVELY show anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for
1- already presented many to you that you've historically ignored or can't read because you're illiterate

2- a singular study is irrelevant. it's the validated studies that prove a scientific fact

3- every FACE study I've linked to you "CONCLUSIVELY show anthropogenic CO2" is detrimental

4- I already know that you've ignored more than 20 different FACE study links I and others have sent you

5- you will ignore this, then rant about bullsh*t, then claim the validated studies are wrong without evidence, then link some random idiot wattsup or anti-AGW link that not only isn't relevant but likely completely disregards facts of the studies I linked, and then you will arbitrarily attack without knowledge of how f*cking epically you were just slammed.
frflyer
4 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2018
Pal review??

Deniers are so good at it.

Harde Times

Readers may recall a post a year ago about a nonsense paper by Hermann Harde that appeared in Global and Planetary Change. We reported too on the crowd-sourced rebuttal led by Peter Köhler that was published last October. Now comes an editorial by three members of the Editorial Board (Martin Grosjean, Joel Guiot and Zicheng Yu) reporting on what the circumstances were that led to the Harde paper appearing.

The story is (unsurprisingly) one of 'Pal Review'

http://www.realcl...e-times/

frflyer
4 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2018
Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale

"We often hear claims from climate contrarians that climate scientists are guilty of what they describe as "pal review."

..... A group of 14 climate contrarians found a sympathetic journal editor who proceeded to publish a large number of papers from this group over a very short timeframe, many of which were scientifically flawed, some of which were subsequently used by politicians to oppose climate legislation.
....... The most infamous of these papers was one by Soon and Baliunas (2003)"

( Willie Soon received $1 Million from fossil fuel interests over a ten year period.)

http://www.desmog...997-2003
frflyer
4 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2018
Cook et al looked at 12,280 papers published, of which 4,011 papers addressed the cause.

* 3,933 papers endorsed AGW.
* 78 rejected AGW - 1.9%

98% of the authors of those 4,011 papers said they and their papers agree with AGW
--------------------
In the one year + from November 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013, -
there were 2,225 peer reviewed papers published by 9,136 contributing scientists.
Only ONE of those 9,136 rejects AGW - [That's just over 1/100 of 1%]
-----

Between 1991 -2012 there were 13,950 papers published.
24 of them reject AGW.
Of the 33,690 scientists who contributed to the 13,950 papers, only 34 reject AGW - [That's 1/10 of 1%]
-----

frflyer
4 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2018
satellites have provided direct empirical evidence that the earth is currently trapping more heat than it used to, specifically at the frequencies that are absorbed by CO2 (Harries et al. 2001; Griggs and Harries 2007).
--------
Fingerprints of AGW

Rising tropopause
Less Oxygen in the atmosphere
Nights warming faster than days
Shrinking thermosphere
Cooling stratosphere
More fossil fuel carbon in corals (isotope)
Less Heat escaping to space
More heat returning to Earth
-----
Basics of Global Climate Change: A Logical Proof That it is Our Fault

https://thelogico...r-fault/
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
Cook et al looked at 12,280 papers published, of which 4,011 papers addressed the cause.

* 3,933 papers endorsed AGW.
* 78 rejected AGW - 1.9%

98% of the authors of those 4,011 papers said they and their papers agree with AGW
--------------------
In the one year + from November 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013, -
there were 2,225 peer reviewed papers published by 9,136 contributing scientists.
Only ONE of those 9,136 rejects AGW - [That's just over 1/100 of 1%]
-----

Between 1991 -2012 there were 13,950 papers published.
24 of them reject AGW.
Of the 33,690 scientists who contributed to the 13,950 papers, only 34 reject AGW - [That's 1/10 of 1%]
-----


http://iopscience...4024/pdf
frflyer
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2018
Global warming isn't natural, and here's how we know

"when you claim that virtually all of the world's climatologists are wrong and the earth is actually warming naturally, you have just placed the burden of proof on you to provide evidence for that claim. In other words, simply citing previous warming events does not prove that the current warming is natural. You have to actually provide evidence for a natural cause of the current warming, but (as I'll explain shortly) no such mechanism exists."

https://thelogico...we-know/
frflyer
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2018
antigoracle --- "from your AGW Cult"

When over 97% of climate scientists worldwide, and virtually every major professional science organization in the world, with relevance to earth studies, agrees on AGW, - your idiotic echo chamber of denial IS THE CULT.

For conspiracy theory nuts, eventually everyone else in the world become members of a conspiracy. I have news for you. You are a tool of a real conspiracy. The oil industry's own scientists said AGW is real back in the 1970s. Then they funded denialist disinformation for over 3 decades. That is a real conspiracy -. The one you aid and abet

snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
https://thelogico...r-fault/

wow thats really weak ,

a [ fake] appeal to authority ,
CO2 traps heat but its a trace gas
we are adding more , but its still a trace gas
therefore we are causing the clmate to change
a little , maybe , can we even measure it ? do we know everything ?
do we trust our unelected leaders ?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
@snoose
https://thelogico...r-fault/

wow thats really weak
the blog in question breaks down the argument into simple to understand layman's terms with references in order to:
1- Teach critical thinking
2- Explain how science works and why it is reliable
3- Use critical thinking to defend science against the numerous logically flawed attacks that are hurled at it

why do they do it?
the biggest problem the deniers have is that they're using non-scientific arguments to argue a scientific fact is "wrong" to them

not once has any denier actually been able to refute any of the validated studies I've posted against them with any studies, let alone validated studies, therefore, it makes sense to teach them critical thinking skills and the basics first

moreover, most deny the observed and validated evidence, so arguments here are presented mostly as a means for intelligent readers who seek facts over emotional bullsh*t like antig, shooty, etc
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
critical thinking skills ? thats a laugh coming from someone who relies entirely on appeal to authority arguements
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
One piece of data never to forget: Almanacs. The sheer mass of fossil fuels burned year-by-year says everything needed to put the "anthropogenic" in anthropogenic global climate change.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2018
@snoozebum
critical thinking skills ? thats a laugh coming from someone who relies entirely on appeal to authority arguements
considering you have yet to produce any actual scientific evidence to prove AGW is false, it would appear that the problem lies within your own inability to comprehend the basics of science

appealing to a study, especially one that is validated, isn't appeal to authority

appeal to authority would be appealing to a persons experience over the evidence, or to their belief and/or claims based upon their claims of experience, neither of which is being done by me

you, however, keep appealing to sites or individuals "in which [your] claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion" directly contradictory to observation and evidence

your epic fail is epic

there is a simple fix, but it requires effort on your part
https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
frflyer
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2018
snoosebaum

"CO2 traps heat but its a trace gas"
Standard denier deceptive sound byte.

All the greenhouse gases combined only make up 0.5% of the atmosphere, but without them, the average global temperature would be 30 C or 54 F colder than it is. Earth would essentially be a snowball in space. Non condensing greenhouse gases like CO2 have long resident times in the atmosphere. Water vapor has a very short resident time, a matter of days. CO2 for hundreds of years. And CO2 is by far the prevalent non condensing greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

Water vapor can ONLY act as a feedback, because heat is what puts it in the air. There are many things that can put CO2 in the air, including human caused emissions. In today's case, CO2 is acting as a climate forcing, initiating the warming. At the end of a glacial period, it performs as a feedback, a major player in ending the glacial period, after Milankovitch cycles start the warming.

frflyer
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2018
And we are increasing CO2 far faster than nature does. 100 times faster than nature.
Atmospheric CO2 has increased by over 80ppm since 1960. (56 years)
Atmospheric CO2 has increased by over 120ppm since 1880 (138 years)
----------------

How does that compare with naturally occurring changes over the past 450,000 years?

Well from ice core data:

450,000 years ago, it was at ~200ppm and it took ~50,000 years to go to ~ 280ppm. (80ppm increase)

It was at ~190ppm 350,000 years ago and it took 25,000 years to go up to 300ppm. (110ppm increase)

It was at ~180ppm 260,000 years ago and it took 20,000 years to go up to ~300ppm. (120ppm increase)

It was at ~200ppm 220,000 years ago and it took 20,000 years to go up to ~260ppm. (60ppm increase)

It was at ~180ppm 140,000 years ago and it took 15,000 years to go up to ~290ppm. (90ppm increase)

It was at ~180ppm 25,000 years ago and it took 24,800 years to go up to ~280ppm. (100ppm increase)

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2018
We had a snowball Earth before animals started putting out enough CO2 to warm things up.

We had an ice age when trees invaded the land before animals came to eat them.

If you want to see the average temperature on Earth with no global warming gases, check out the Moon, in the shade if you are on the Sun side.
Anonym692504
not rated yet Nov 28, 2018
INVEST YOUR BITCOIN WITH US TODAY LET US START TRADING WITH YOUR BITCOIN AFTER 7 WORKING DAYS YOU WILL RECEIVE TIM'S 5 OF THE BITCOIN YOU INVESTED.

ARE YOU NEW IN BINARY OPTION TRADE?????

Interested For Urgent Response very much available send us messages no Email: FranklyMiller@aol.com

THANKS..
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2018
''appeal to authority would be appealing to a persons experience over the evidence''

well thats rich ,, from

https://www.logic...uthority

The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that's why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2018
@illiterate snooze
well thats rich ,, from
from your own link
Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning
you're confusing "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority, for starters

for two: I've appealed to the evidence provided in the studies, not to the authors in said studies, which makes you doubly stupid for making the fallacious claim of "appeal to authority"

lastly: even with an authority or a study (singular; not validated) I accept facts only provisionally until they can be validated, which I've repeatedly stated (and demonstrated) here on PO

just because you don't understand doesn't mean no one else does
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2018

''I accept facts only provisionally until they can be validated, ''

no you preach them with whole hearted enthusiam , i wonder what you will do when some doctor gives you a mistaken diagnosis of terminalitis . you will have to accept without question as he is the science expert .

From wiki
''a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.[2][3]''

so there is the problem , i don't respect your experts in the context of political realities
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2018
@snooze
no you preach them with whole hearted enthusiam
something that is validated: yes
singular studies: no
learn to read
i wonder what you will do when some doctor gives you a mistaken diagnosis of terminalitis . you will have to accept without question as he is the science expert
I will do what I always do: check the facts, get second opinions, and check the evidence

science is scepticism that is tested while removing bias
you're not a sceptic as there is *no* evidence that will convince you that you're wrong
that is religion, fanaticism, or delusion (and other mental illnesses)
i don't respect your experts in the context of political realities
at least you finally admit that the problem isn't the science but rather your political views and the actions you don't want

that is called conspiracist ideation coupled with fanaticism
it is also seen in religions, mind you

snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2018
''check the facts, get second opinions, and check the evidence''

exactly what AGW skepitics do

''you're not a sceptic as there is *no* evidence that will convince you that you're wrong''

there might be in 10 yrs , its the nature of the question

''that is called conspiracist ideation coupled with fanaticism''

not really , https://www.youtu...vehbomrY
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2018
@snooze
exactly what AGW skepitics do
bullsh*t
you dismiss facts that you don't want to accept as facts because of the political or other implications around them, like reducing carbon emissions
there might be in 10 yrs
and in that ten years, when you're proven to be wrong yet again?
what then?

Scientists have been steadily collecting more and greater evidence and your argument is "wait a decade or two" because you don't want to believe the facts?

you just proved my point re: conspiracist ideation coupled with fanaticism (and delusion)
not really , https://www.youtu...vehbomrY
1- youtube isn't the same thing as a study

2- Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist - he doesn't know climate change

3- I never said the world would all come together

4- modal fallacy; False attribution fallacy;
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2018
Took a bit of looking around, seems Reagan ordered a general destruction of certain records, which is mentioned in this following piece, which gets into the history of Waste Disposal. the name Solid Waste disposal is only part of it, but Chapter 2 gets deep into the history of waste disposal and the mindset at that time. EPA only started in 70.
https://www.csu.e...1998.pdf

And after that one needs to look at:
https://danielstr...ery-act/
and:
https://www.epa.g...us-waste

Note the chart detailing liquid wastes that meet the guidelines as 'essentially the same as a (virgin) petroleum product. However they had to term them Hazardous Materials Based Fuels, most of which are actually incinerated in places like Cement Plants.

I was off about the high sulfur, and the PCBs are actually formed in the combustion of those products. (2Bctnd)
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2018
But in the 70s we were faced with an energy shortage AND a garbage glut. Many people tried ineffective incineration with garbage, which is largely what gives 'incineration' a bad name.

The RCRA act, along with the Resource Reclamation and Energy Reclamation efforts they built a new mix of fuel that would incorporate these, previously termed Toxic Waste products, and made them feedstocks for fuels instead. Some are at microns per cubic meter, like Benzene, some, like Toluene was added at 6% as a flame cooling modifier. Other previously classed Hazardous Materials found new use as additives, as a way to reduce the toxic stocks of materials. They were able to sell their wastes back to the refineries for a profit, and the military burned whatever met their fuel specs, no matter what it was derived from.

That is clearly laid out in the above materials, however there has been a clear effort made to 'sanitize' the information and make it hard to locate.
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2018
But even at, say, 1 lb of Benzene per ton, there is still some 50 million lbs of Benzene going out per year, and that is at the old figure of some 5 billion gallons aircraft fuel/year. But in that 1 ton you are going to have 15 gallons of toluene, running at 340 million lbs of toluene/year. 17 million tons/year of Toluene burned as Jet Fuel.

One ton is approximately 250 gallons.

The U-2 spy plane was run on Lighter Fluid, all aromatics and light napthalenes. Very high hydrogen content, ultra low freeze and high pressure tankage due to expansion at heat.

That is why the revised build measures for the new fuel, higher percentage of the light fractions previously refined out for (now banned) uses were lower evap point, low flash point, and so had higher tank pressure that had to be built for and compensated for. The sealants and all had to withstand the new, toxic fuel mix. Not that the older fuels were less toxic, these were just the New Hazardous Waste Derived Fuels.
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2018
Of course most of the Backlog chemical sources that went into the fuel feedstock were used up and those chemicals still produced and used are under a completely different set of controls now. But for a time it was considered the Best Practice to reclaim and reuse the materials as military and civilian fuels, in slightly different mixes.

But for a time people were plenty upset and suspicious about this whole idea, until it was pointed out that aside from using the lighter fractions, it was still the same toxic mess as before, and the lighter fractions actually evaporated out of soils etc quicker, which actually made them more dangerous should a spill occur.

HazMat was designed for the Fuel Spills of both Jet and Diesel fuels, (which are different but similar blend, diesel being the heavy extracts,) and for radioactive fuels as well as other hazardous or explosive materials encountered, and is centered on Military or Civilian Airports as centralized locations.
antigoracle
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2018
3- every FACE study I've linked to you "CONCLUSIVELY show anthropogenic CO2" is detrimental

More PATHOLOGICAL LIES from the braying StumPid jackass.
StumPid is the "stable geniASS" of the forum, because he's such a stupid jackass that they cannot put him out to pasture, but for his safety must keep him in a STABLE.

Hey StumPid stop soiling the forum with the SHITE between your ears and provide a SINGLE pal reviewed "study" that conclusively show anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for even one of the AGW Cult's doom and gloom bullshit.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2018
@steel
Took a bit of looking around,
your OSTI/DOE report from 1998 isn't proof of anything except that the US is monitoring recycling and "Managing Americaís Solid Waste"

nowhere does it spell out how to reuse waste in jet fuel
and as I noted, even wrt Toluene, you're talking one of the most inefficient means of waste control ever created, especially considering the majority of toluene production is unrecovered (i.e., not isolated from other aromatic constituents [Chemical Economics Handbook])
Of course most of the Backlog chemical sources that went into the fuel feedstock were used up
millions of gallons of [x] product were "used up" in jet fuel at PPM concentrations as a means to incinerate them?

it would be faster, cheaper, easier and smarter to build a special incinerator (in every state) and run it than distribute the waste to the fuels for the purpose of waste management

you're reaching, bro
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2018
@steel
But for a time it was considered the Best Practice to reclaim and reuse the materials as military and civilian fuels, in slightly different mixes
you cannot reclaim/reuse material in jet fuel per FAA, NATO, MIL-SPEC and gov't guidelines

that means you may well have misunderstood what the whole waste management publications are all about

the introduction of waste materials into fuels is a no-no when you have multi-million (or billion) dollar aircraft with souls on board, plus, it's a wildly inefficient means of disposal for the waste

what you don't seem to understand is that the materials (like MEK, Toluene) classification under EPA or in your classification publications are specifically referring to the classification of the material for the purpose of waste management and HAZ-MAT disposal guidelines - not for purposed use as commercial or military fuels

there is no evidence anywhere in any of your papers showing otherwise
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2018
@antigorical the idiot illiterate trolling POS f*ckwad loser
provide a SINGLE pal reviewed "study" that conclusively show anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for even one of the AGW Cult's doom and gloom bullshit.
there is an *ssload here: https://phys.org/...ope.html

before you read them, you should first learn how to read
go here: http://readingbear.org/
frflyer
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018
"provide a SINGLE pal reviewed "study" that conclusively show anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for even one of the AGW Cult's doom and gloom bullshit."

Would 3,933 of them be enough?

Cook et al looked at 12,280 papers published, of which 4,011 papers addressed the cause.

Of the papers about the cause of the warming.
* 3,933 papers endorsed AGW.
* 78 rejected AGW - 1.9%
------------

Between 1991 -2012 there were 13,950 papers published.
24 of them reject AGW.
Of the 33,690 scientists who contributed to the 13,950 papers, only 34 reject AGW - [That's 1/10 of 1%]
-----

In the one year + from November 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013, -
there were 2,225 peer reviewed papers published by 9,136 contributing scientists.
Only ONE of those 9,136 rejects AGW - [That's just over 1/100 of 1%]
-----

frflyer
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018
I've got your pal review right here.

Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale

"We often hear claims from climate contrarians that climate scientists are guilty of what they describe as "pal review."

However, while climate contrarians are never able to produce any evidence to support their conspiracy theory, John Mashey has thoroughly documented a real world example of true pal review. Contrary to the standard conspiracy theory, the pal review did not involve mainstream climate scientists, but instead the climate contrarians themselves.

John Mashey's documentation of a pal review true story.

http://www.desmog...997-2003
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2018
Stump is from the world AFTER the 70s, when we had corporate plants burning anything they could, and poisoning the world while they went about it with unrealistic, unscientific combusting of materials called incineration which covered the surrounds in ash and soot.

The 70s were a time of energy shortage, military conflict increase, and garbage glut. It was legally, in congress, decided to burn these wastes as Energy and give exemptions based on this. Jet Fuel was a strategic Need, and so they released the toxic stored materials to be re-tasked as Jet Fuel, if properly mixed.

This is Historical Fact. If YOU cannot find paperwork on it does not mean it did not happen. Paperwork is destroyed all the time, illegally, it has been done en mass during the Nixon, Ford and Reagan Admins, and info about those removals was scrubbed during the last Bush Presidency.

Not at all conspiracy theory. Just the FACTS about HISTORY from someone living at the time.
antigoracle
3 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2018
@antigorical HAWW..HEE.. f*ckwad loser
provide a SINGLE pal reviewed "study" that conclusively show anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for even one of the AGW Cult's doom and gloom bullshit.
there is an *ssload here: https://phys.org/...ope.html

There it goes again, StumPid, the stable geniASS of the forum brays, while it soils the place with the SHITE between its ears.
It boasts how it can read and even provides the link from where it learned, yet confirms that it is incapable of comprehension.
LMAO. The conclusive proof it provided has the headline -- Climate change COULD lead to...
Further more, that story blatantly state their conclusion is based, NOT ON FACTS, but on computer models and we know what a "fantastic" record the AGW Cult has with those.

So, how about studies that are based on ACTUAL DATA -- https://agupubs.o...GL068172

Read more at: https://phys.org/...ric.html
frflyer
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018
"NOT ON FACTS, but on computer models and we know what a "fantastic" record the AGW Cult has with those."

Obviously you do not know.

"Climate models and the IPCC are alarmist."

Cherry picking
Selectively looks at a few examples where the IPCC overestimated climate change, ignoring the much larger number of examples of underestimation.

https://skeptical...lacy.php

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

Models

Clearly, contrary to what the deniers want you to believe, the models taken as a group have not overestimated global warming. Yet for some reason, this patently false claim is one of their loudest and most frequent

https://tamino.wo.../models/

frflyer
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018
Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.

That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum
sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with
the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
frflyer
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018
Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.

The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.

The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.

The expansion of the Hadley cells.

The poleward movement of storm tracks.

The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.

The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.
------

Barton Paul Levenson
frflyer
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018

How reliable are climate models?

https://skeptical...iate.htm
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2018
@steel
It was legally, in congress, decided to burn these wastes as Energy and give exemptions based on this. Jet Fuel was a strategic Need, and so they released the toxic stored materials to be re-tasked as Jet Fuel, if properly mixed
and I'm telling you that if it were legal, and in congress, there would be a clear record that indicates exactly that they are to burn HAZ waste as fuels

you've not been able to produce that here
What you've produced is a mental gymnastics that requires the person accept first and foremost that your conspiracy be correct, and then that you're being logical and methodical
Neither are true unless you can provide evidence, which you haven't

Just because the 70's were a time of "energy shortage, military conflict increase, and garbage glut" doesn't mean you are correct

congress can hide national security actions, but they can't hide policy
you're arguing policy, not national security
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2018
@steel
This is Historical Fact
no, it's not
If YOU cannot find paperwork on it does not mean it did not happen
actually, it does
as I said, the gov't, and especially the military, require reams of paperwork and "red tape". especially for any national policy or something that requires re-writing a law or bill in Congress as you've stated

because it's in Congress, and it's not national security, it's available FOIA (and some national security is also available, depending on time, person, event, etc)

this can't be buried, bro. it just can't
if it's in a bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/

if it's policy, try the other links I gave you
if it's EPA, DOE or other policy, those links are above too
even https://scholar.google.com/ will have copies of historical EPA, DOE and policy studies

if you can't produce the reference material it's because you misremember what was actually stated, which is probable considering the length of time, etc
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2018
@steel last
Paperwork is destroyed all the time, illegally
true

however, you're talking about a national policy that has far-reaching implications and, per your claims, had a bill or law re-written to facilitate it

the simple fact of the matter is: if it's what influenced a law then it's in the Library of Congress
period
full stop

you can't hide it, nor can you get rid of all the copies, because it will have been referenced in the discussions or debates about the bill, etc

then there is the scientific aspect of it - ya can't delete all the world science
even a Carnegie Library has all the needed data to build a nuclear weapon if you know how to look
...Just the FACTS about HISTORY
giving you the benefit of doubt: this is your belief, thus it's, at best, an untested claim
http://www.auburn...ion.html

no verifiable evidence means it's not a fact, however
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2018
@frflyer, welcome to the global warming wars. You're doing great so far. I've spent a decade and don't have the energy you show any more. Please keep on and expect a 5 from me for every accurate post.
frflyer
3 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2018
Thank you.
I also have been doing it for a decade. I'm not a scientist, but have been reading at climate science blogs since about 2007. Pretty much seven days a week since then. Took off a good part of a year, because of the frustration of trying to reason with deniers.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
@frflyer
Took off a good part of a year, because of the frustration of trying to reason with deniers

may I offer a change of perspective?

you can't reason with them, so instead, offer a refutation of their bullsh*t so that others who are on the fence can see the science and facts

Some visitors just need to see the science

The deniers are here to attempt to validate their claims because of the perceived authority of the site

given the comment guidelines, they know that the uneducated and scientifically illiterate will gravitate to their claims simply because they're not deleted from the site as pseudoscience

add into that the volume of anti-science posters (and the dearth of refute) while the pro-science don't band together and leave out of frustration, then you get success by attrition

it's a concerted well-financed effort against science
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
The deniers are here to attempt to validate their claims because of the perceived authority of the site ''

'nope , no chance of that

''given the comment guidelines, they know that the uneducated and scientifically illiterate will gravitate to their claims simply because they're not deleted from the site as pseudoscience''

if they were deleted you would have a fun echo chamber , talk amongst youselves , ya right

''then you get success by attrition ''''\

it would not be fun anymore

frflyer
3 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
@Captain Stumpy

I agree. That is what I try to do.

Since a good percentage of deniers are prone to conspiracy theory thinking, showing them facts only makes them more entrenched in their beliefs. Most of them probably are regular Fox News viewers.

About 5 years ago a study of Fox News climate change reporting found it false or highly misleading 93% of the time. Then about two years ago, another study found the same thing about 76% of the time. They live in Trump and Hannity's world of "alternate facts".


Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2018
@snoose
nope , no chance of that
then how do you justify the repetitious posting of the exact same debunked data?
repeating a lie on a science news aggregate is an attempt to validate the lie through repetition
they were deleted you would have a fun echo chamber
wrong
there is plenty of debate about the science without the delusional pseudoscience crowd

it's why forums exist to talk about them and why this site has a comments section and the hilarious guidelines that aren't actually enforced
it would not be fun anymore
talking about the science is fun

speculating is fun (when it's clearly speculation)

talking to a delusional fanatic of any belief is not fun and spreads misinformation and lies
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
@frflyer
I agree. That is what I try to do
and you're doing a great job

I am trying to understand the reasoning and foundations of the denier crowd - I have a hypothesis that their denial, conspiracist ideation and mental gymnastics to justify their delusions may well be a means to predict other types of behaviour
About 5 years ago a study of Fox News climate change reporting found
I still honestly can't fathom getting science information from the news without validating the news by checking the source
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2018
I posted the exact portion of the act that when read in plain English, with a lawyer's bent, as ALL laws are written by lawyers, it gave explicit permission to burn Previously Classed Hazardous Wastes as long as those wastes were equivalent to fuels produced from virgin petroleum sources.

Just because YOU cannot find the information does not mean it is not there, you have specific reasons to not look very hard as it would blow away your side of the argument to do so.

I already gave you the History behind the reasons for it's use, the exact law and acts under it that gave the permissions, and told you exactly what the Governments and Corporations did under said acts. Whether you Want to believe or not, THAT IS the data that shows you it was done, as I said it was.

Go and talk to the old guys from the military fuel depots of the time, the 1970's, if you can find one, and they will tell you the same, it was done and mostly covered up, like a cat, burying it's mess.
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2018
The RCRA specifically states that if it is a liquid waste product, or a gas, that it is flammable, then it can be reclassed not as Toxic Waste but as a Fuel, however it must carry the term (at the time, since modified) Hazardous Waste Derived Fuels, and separated, in the act, from solids as Hazardous Wastes, which may be burnt for fuel if they have a BTU above a certain level, in Cement kilns and other waste disposal units. But the ones that could be repurposed as other fuels, were, and Jet-A/JP-8 Fuel, with it's 6% toluene, is certainly a Hazardous Waste Derived Fuel when gotten from other than straight petroleum stocks. Much is made from cracked coal tars, with the same problems.

Just because you cannot find said info in your glance as to what degree they went to make such info hard to find, as the Above article on solid waste management outlined...IFF you actually read it, you would understand much better. No woo to it, straight fact, no matter your pallid stumped search.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
@steel
I posted the exact portion of the act that when read in plain English
sory bro, but you don't comprehend that burning or incinerating waste is *not* the same thing as adding it to jet fuel

an additive can be toxic, benign, liquid, gaseous, etc; nowhere does it read in any law, anywhere, that said additives can be waste

this is where your argument breaks down and you're having the problem

The EPA, FAA and various other alphabet agencies have very, very strict guidelines about what can and cannot be in an aviation fuel because, as I've stated, you don't piss away millions (or billions) of dollars on aircraft and then retask them as waste incinerators when lives are at stake, especially when cause and culpability are issues in a legal action

moreover, *if* your argument were valid (remembered correctly), *and* it was enacted into law, *then* there would absolutely be a paper trail

I think your recollection is flawed on this issue.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
@steel
Just because YOU cannot find the information does not mean it is not there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

it's hard to find evidence that doesn't exist, but I've tried for ya
I already gave you the History
no, you've offered your version to justify your conspiracy - personal observation sans validation or evidence isn't equivalent to evidence of anything except your opinion
You've gone from untested claim to a false claim - http://www.auburn...ion.html

Go and talk to the old guys from the military fuel depots of the time, the 1970's, if you can find one
funny, that was the first thing I did
no less than three separate people said you were a nut, and I'm excluding my brothers
The RCRA specifically states that if it is a liquid waste product, or a gas, that it is flammable, then it can be reclassed not as Toxic Waste but as a Fuel
pig iron
'nuff said?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
@steel
...and Jet-A/JP-8 Fuel, with it's 6% toluene, is certainly a Hazardous Waste Derived Fuel
an additive is purposely manufactured - purposely manufactured additives are *not* waste
Just because you cannot find said info in your glance as to what degree they went to make such info hard to find
Ok, here is the thing: Had you been a firefighter who was educated in HAZ-MAT, then you would not only be working with these laws and regs, but also SARA, CFR Title 10 (and Title 34), Title 49 and various other laws and regs

when you tell me that [x] is present in these laws, which I'm pretty familiar with, and you can't point to specifics, but then require me to read your "history" and explain how your conspiracy works, then you're not able to produce evidence unless I accept your conspiracy is valid, which you cannot prove with *any* evidence

that is not logical
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
@steel last
as the Above article on solid waste management outlined...IFF you actually read it, you would understand much better. No woo to it, straight fact, no matter your pallid stumped search
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

the burden of proof is on you and you've not met said burden

you claim "No woo to it, straight fact" and yet you can't produce the evidence

everything you stated will only be acceptable with the above links and references if the reader accepts your conspiracy

think of this like a court: https://www.law.c...ules/fre

your evidence is circumstantial hearsay (at best) and is inconsistent with the presented physical evidence

in light of prior admissions and statements, your judgement can be considered questionable

the burden of proof is upon you, but just saying "look here", "the gov't said..." and "if you take my word" isn't proof of anything but your opinion
Steelwolf
not rated yet Dec 04, 2018
I already produced the evidence, you are like the pope and cardinals refusing to look through Galileo's telescope, and making decrees based on your own ignorance, even the educated ignorance you wallow in and automatic walls you have built in to new information that does not conform to Your Notions.

The World does not run to Your Notions, and people have been doing nasty stuff they can get away with all the time. Look at recent story on flame retardants, banned products, still showing up in Baby safety seats and even your cellphone casing.

I gave you the law, the act and section and subsection that detailed how certain previously classed hazardous waste were re-classified as valuable fuel reserves instead.

I gave PLENTY of proof, and I am sure others here fully understand that. Just because YOU went to lengths to disregard such proofs does not mean that others have, and you cannot wish away the truth by waving your hand and calling it Fake News, as Trump is finding out.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
@steel
I already produced the evidence
the only way your argument makes *any* sense at all is if the reader of the said argument suspends logic and assumes your conspiracy is legitimate
The World does not run to Your Notions
nor does it run on yours
just because you believe it doesn't mean it's true or even real
see: any religion
I gave PLENTY of proof
and I repeat: incineration of waste is logical in that era;

incineration of waste using expensive aircraft with souls on board in the slowest, most time-consuming fashion while specifically manufacturing more toxic material for the sake of additives in fuel is ludicrous

our disagreement isn't about the toxicity of the jet fuel but the claims about government policies and procedures to get rid of toxic wastes which you claim were established and are part of the law, etc

if it were evidence-based and had "proofs", one would not require mental gymnastics to accept it
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
@steel cont'd
...people have been doing nasty stuff they can get away with all the time. Look at recent story on flame retardants, banned products, still showing up in...

I gave you the law, the act and section and subsection that detailed how ...
just to make a clear point: these are also some of the arguments being produced to "prove" that the government vaccination program is actually there to sterilise minorities or as a gov't backed mind control program

moreover, just because someone has done something wrong in the past, or because someone has been caught doing something wrong now, doesn't mean your argument is valid, otherwise, you could argue that because you claim your dad was UDT/SEAL then you're one too

this is why I don't accept your arguments or mental gymnastics as a valid argument

and it doesn't matter how many times you claim I'm ignoring it - you've not met the requirement of "proof" if it requires a conspiracy acceptance
Steelwolf
not rated yet Dec 06, 2018
I was no SEAL, I specifically avoided that, did not let them see how well I could shoot, I engineered an excuse to not be at the shooting range that day. Since they had dad's record, I am pretty sure they were well aware of my proficiency anyhow.

But on the fuels thing, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 specifically grandfathers in all previous and in use chemicals and substances 'safe for present uses'. Some were later defined as more hazardous and under further restrictions Later, but at the time, they plain grandfathered in the fuels and additives in use at the time.

Even the histories say it was a tumultuous time with the industries being hostile to ANY regulation until after rivers burned and smog was so thick you could not see across the street in downtown LA or New York. So the Govt. reacted, but was stymied by the big money of the time in the limits they could go to. EPA history itself shows that, let alone deeper look into the acts in the 70s.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
@steel
Since they had dad's record, I am pretty sure they were well aware of my proficiency anyhow
your dad's record has no bearing at all whatsoever on your proficiency

it can be used as a justification for (or against) clearance, or for certain other medical/psychiatric reasons, but that is about it
...specifically grandfathers in ... 'safe for present uses'
none of which supports your claim of policy to incinerate HAZ waste with jet fuel

and to be clear, adding waste to jet fuel is a big no-no according to FAA, NATO and the links/references I provided above as it's definitely *not* safe
Even the histories say it was a tumultuous time
irrelevant
history also said homosexuality was a mental illness
EPA history itself shows that, let alone deeper look into the acts in the 70s
looked deeper, read the red tape

not one single justification for your comment that I quoted above multiple times

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.