funny things to do on a bike

Zoot Katz wrote:

Wed, 19 May 2004 18:38:30 -0700,
,
Mark Hickey wrote:

If the stuff was as dangerous as you claim, imagine the problems our
soldiers would be having being locked into metal vehicles positively
full of the stuff day after day.

Ask the sick GWI and Balkan veterans how they feel instead of braying
like an ass.

Thank you - there's no better way for you to validate my position than
by resorting to ad hominem.

http://www2.gol.com/users/bobkeim/Iraq/duvets-p.html

One quack doctor vs. all the real data.

You make your choice, I'll make mine.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

In article ,
Mark Hickey wrote:
Iraq had and used BATTLEFIELD chemical weapons. The destructive
potential of these is minor compared to nuclear weapons - the only real
"Weapons of Mass Destruction". Calling what Iraq had WMD's is blatant
propaganda.

Heh. I'll call Washington and let 'em know we all have nothing to
worry about.

Given the longest range delivery system that Iraq possessed had a range
of about a hundred miles, it is perfectly true to say that Iraq
presented no risk to Washington.

ian

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote ...

Yeah, the 3 to 4 liters of sarin in that shell could have killed only
as many as 3-4000 people had it been used properly. Why worry about
little things like that?

Because it's really not possible. Like a society in which flying cars
are the norm...

I thought humanity had the technology to turn a liquid into a fine
mist... guess not, huh? S'cuze me while I go out back and spray some
bug spray on my hedge with my garden sprayer (which is apparently at
the same technological level as the Moler "snake oil" sky car).

If you think you know something about sarin delivery systems, then you
are sadly mistaken. It ain't as easy as you think, and the
concentration gradients vary as the cube of distance from the source.
One gallon of sarin cannot kill "thousands" of people without *direct
application to each of those people.*

You're not a scientist, so don't pretend you know anything about this
subject.
--
Jonesy "research chemist (formerly with DoD) when not riding a bike."

(Chalo) wrote:

"Toxic particulates, gases, and vapors (such as uranium metal fume,
oxides of uranium, hydrogen fluoride, carbon monoxide, and dangerous
radioactive materials) may be released when uranium or an insoluble
uranium compound decomposes...

But we're talking about depleted uranium, which is inherently stable.

"Use graphite chips, carbon dust, asbestos blankets, or flooding with
water to extinguish small uranium fires. There is no effective way to
extinguish large uranium fires.

Sounds like magnesium (or even titanium)

" Fires involving uranium or an insoluble uranium compound should be
fought upwind and from the maximum distance possible. Keep unnecessary
people away; isolate hazard area and deny entry. Emergency personnel
should stay out of low areas and ventilate closed spaces before
entering. Finely divided uranium (chips, turnings, shavings, etc.) are
much more reactive than uranium in bulk form. If these are present
during a fire, do not disperse them into a dust cloud, which may be
explosive. "

I'm not following what that has to do with DU ammunition though...

It ain't lead, Mark.

Lead does not burn to a powdery ash when used as directed, even in
ordnance. It's tough to accidentally inhale or ingest a chunk of
lead. Uranium doesn't leave chunks when it's used as projectiles--
mainly dust and vapor.

What!!?? Chalo, I think you're very, very mistaken.

I'm certainly no expert on DU projectiles, but it stands to reason
that you don't choose a material that turns to "dust and vapor" for
armor piercing rounds. The projectile HAS to stay intact through
layers of armor to do any damage to what's on the other side.

Warmongers are quick to point out that depleted uranium is only a
*little bit* radioactive, not enough to cause radiation sickness. It
only takes a *little bit* of radioactive material to give you lung
cancer if you breathe it, though. Take in more than a little and you
won't have to worry about lung cancer 'cause the kidney failure will
get you first.

Yet there's been no increase in kidney problems among the soldiers
who've been exposed to the DU ammunition.

The only folks sticking up for DU weapons are those who have money
riding on it-- and their lackeys and apologists, of course.

And those who need to stay alive buy using the DU ammunition. And
their parents, siblings, and friends.

If the stuff was as dangerous as you claim, imagine the problems our
soldiers would be having being locked into metal vehicles positively
full of the stuff day after day.

That is as different from the type of exposure to DU that happens in
the area of projectile impact as driving a car with a tankful of
gasoline is to being hosed down with it.

I seem to remember a whole host of problems suffered by the soldiers
who have been in the position to be significantly exposed to DU,
referred to collectively and vaguely as "Gulf War Syndrome". Lots of
folks have died from it, and others continue to suffer.

But there has been no increase in kidney problems, which would be the
first indication of exposure to any "dangerous" uranium compounds.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"Jonesy" wrote in message
m...
Mark Hickey wrote in message
. ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote ...

Yeah, the 3 to 4 liters of sarin in that shell could have killed only
as many as 3-4000 people had it been used properly. Why worry about
little things like that?

Because it's really not possible. Like a society in which flying cars
are the norm...

I thought humanity had the technology to turn a liquid into a fine
mist... guess not, huh? S'cuze me while I go out back and spray some
bug spray on my hedge with my garden sprayer (which is apparently at
the same technological level as the Moler "snake oil" sky car).

If you think you know something about sarin delivery systems, then you
are sadly mistaken. It ain't as easy as you think, and the
concentration gradients vary as the cube of distance from the source.
One gallon of sarin cannot kill "thousands" of people without *direct
application to each of those people.*

You're not a scientist, so don't pretend you know anything about this
subject.
--
Jonesy "research chemist (formerly with DoD) when not riding a bike."

Big deal. You roll out a quote about the cube of distance and then claim
you're a scientist - big fat deal!

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Like in a crowded subway? Ooops, that's already been done. Aum
Shinriko killed exactly 12 people using approximately that amount of
Sarin. Your knowledge of Sarin, it's application, and its effects is
woeful. Stick to bicycles, and leave biochemistry to those who
actually know something about it.

You should probably read up on sarin, and on the Shinriko attack.

I know plenty about both. Except I overstated the number killed. The
number is actually 7.

While the delivery system was poorly-designed, it points out a very
significant difficulty using sarin as a terror weapon - it's viscosity
does not lend itself well to aerosol application. In addition, unless
you get it directly on you, your chances of becoming injured or killed
go way down. Not only that, even aerosolized sarin hydrolyzes quite
quickly. Good for use when you want to occupy that territory with
your troops the next day (or thereabouts.)

So 'splain to me what part of my concern about the danger of a gallon
of sarin is "hyperbole", please.

See above. You comprehension of the subject is poor, and your
understanding of the physical properties of the substance is nil.

Your hyperbole is just another example of an apologist attitude when
it comes to the current Administration. I'll ask again - what
mistakes have GWB and his minions made?

They've made mistakes, no doubt.

Not a very specific list. And even the one thing you do bring up is
laughably apologetic. Do the strings bother you much?

But the fact is, the only way to prevent making any mistakes is to do
nothing.

Discretion is the better part of valor. Those who have served in the
military know this.
--
Jonesy

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

[snip]

You are in denial
or don't know the facts about sarin.

LOL. Irony.

Want to try one little drop on your skin to check the facts I
presented? Shouldn't be a problem, right?

Your facts are not in error. Your understanding and comprehension of
how those facts fit the bigger picture are what are in error.

Hope that clarifies.
--
Jonesy

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

Based on a known starting point of at least 85,000 shells (based on
what Iraq admits), that's a pretty high order of precision. Even if
you are right, and there is "only" about 12 gallons of sarin, that's
VERY significant. That's enough to kill enough people to make 9/11
look like a warm up.

100% bull****. Oh, if they all lined up, and you were allowed to
administer the stuff to each person...

In the real world, your scenario is pure Chicken Little fantasy.
--
Jonesy

ML wrote:

How can you possibly justify a war against a country based on the fact
that they might do something to you? How can you possibly justify the
US attacking a sovereign nation to remove their leader because he's bad
for his people? Since when did the US really give two !@#$%s about
that? If they did we'd be all over the world fighting every two-bit
dictator in every African, South American, & Middle Eastern country.

We went BACK to war with a country that had attacked its peaceful
neighbors twice. We did so because that country blatantly broke the
terms of the cease fire that postponed the end of the war for over 12
years. We did so because that country openly supported terrorists,
tried to assassinate an ex-president, and had admitted large stores of
WMD for which there was no current accounting.

The fact that the corrupt and inept UN let Saddam slide for a dozen
years and 17 resolutions doesn't change the facts that what happened
was inevitable (and should have happened a long, long time ago).

That's a pretty high (low?) standard to meet to incur the wrath of the
US. I'm all for going after any other countries that can stoop low
enough to meet it (Afghanistan's Taliban government certainly
qualified).

In the end, the US voters will have a choice in November to decide how
to deal with the terrorist threat. We can move back to the Carter /
Clinton approach of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue,
reacting (mildly) only when attacked. Or we can continue to dismantle
state support for terrorism by letting dictators know that they could
be next on the list. Either terrorism is a bunch of individual
crimes, or it's a war. That's pretty much the choice.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Chalo) wrote:

What I want to know is, why is 9/11 even at issue? The Iraqis had
nothing to do with it, unless you consider them guilty by virtue of
being Arabs!

On this we agree. There is no (definitive) direct connection between
the 9/11 attack and Saddam, though to hear some talk it's brought up
every week by the White House. It's just that no one can seem to
recall exactly what was said... just that it "must have been said"...

When nearly 70% of the population believed they are somehow connected,
then it's obvious they got that idea from *somewhere.* Gosh, could it
have been implied every day for two years by the White House and their
minions? Naw, never happened. People are just stupid, and it's great
when they just happen to be stupid in the direction that suits your
political leanings, huh?

OK then - you should have NO problem citing all the many, many, many
ways the administration "implied" that there is a connection.

From the luna.org site, Bush and his minions equated or linked al
Qaeda to Iraq or Saddam many times. Let's see if you can follow this
huge leap of logic:

1.) Al Qaeda took down the WTC.

2.) Saddam/Iraq is in bed with al Qaeda, thus

3.) Saddam/Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

Wow, I guess it's just my superior intellect that can connect the dots
like that, huh? And GWB would *never* try to link the two if it
weren't true, right? Don't mind the fact that he had it in for Saddam
and Iraq since he arrived in the Oval Office (see Paul O'Neill's book
for confirmation of that.) No, it's not convenient at all to link
Saddam with al Qaeda, because nobody would ever infer any kind of
connection between Saddam and 9/11, right?

Your tap dancing is pathetic. It's LOL silly - I can't believe you
keep up this stupid line of reasoning, clutching at it like it
actually has any traction at all. Pure buffoonery.

LOL - you head-in-the-sand (-up-the-ass) conservatives really give me
a chuckle.

I'm glad. I'm chuckling over the fact you won't be able to give any
citations.

Being a pedantic asshole doesn't improve your logic.

On a related note, there ARE people who believe (after having studied
the facts) that there IS a connection.

THere are also people who believe the moon landings were faked.
Without EVIDENCE, their beliefs are just as wacky as those who think
the ticket to heaven is slamming a passenger jet into an office
building.

Personally I wouldn't doubt
it

Of course you wouldn't. Ignoring facts is part and parcel of the
conservative way of looking at the world. But your beloved Bushies
have said on the record that there was no connection. Well after the
"Mission" was "Accomplished", of course.
--
Jonesy