[Badger Arms]

Okay, I've never posted on this or any other non-gun subject on this board yet, but it's about time. Why aren't environmentalists being blamed for the shuttle Columbia accident?

Let me explain. Does anybody really think that these foam chunks have been falling off shuttles through 100 launches and this is the first time something went wrong? In fact, this is a recent phenomenon and one that was known about and found to be an acceptable risk... we might have known that but why was it found acceptable?

The external fuel tank on the Space Shuttle is basically a giant cryogenic (read cold liquid) tank. To keep that liquid cold and prevent condensation, they insulate the tank with foam insulation. Anybody who's ever had experience with foam knows that it takes environmentally unfriendly chemicals to make it really good.

Well, go figure. NASA sought to replace these chemicals with a 'green' process that was 'safer' on the environment. Well they never found one. BUT, to appear more environmentally friendly, they chose the best of these mediocre processes and adopted it despite it being obviously inferior. When MAJOR delaminations and strikes started occurring, there was NOT a cry of foul and nobody made any attempt to go back to the old process.

Columbia and Seven Americans die in a fireball and guess what... have we heard anything of this? Is there a fix? Do they plan on going back to the old process? Better to use the new inferior process and kill brave Americans than to go back to a process that might lower the ozone percentage .00003% over the life of the shuttle program... Believe it or not, that's the decision. They're going to keep the new foam. Will wonders never cease.

[Malone LaVeigh]

How about this for a concept:

If you can't do something without fouling up the life support systems of the planet, don't do it.

Don't blame the people who happened to point out the uncomfortable facts.

[BenW]

If you can't do something without fouling up the life support systems of the planet, don't do it.
You mean like making the above quote with a computer created with petroleum products in a process that leaches various heavy metals and acids into the environment? Glass houses....

It seems the break you took from the forum was to take a class in advanced trolling.Considering space travel has put dozens of advanced environmental satellites in orbit, I would think someone concerned with saving the planet would be in favor of it. I don't know a single hydrologist who hasn't used LandSat image analysis to help them do their jobs better.

[HankB]

Environmentalists also have been blamed for the 9/11 collapse of the Twin Towers. About midway through construction, NYC banned use of asbestos for fireproofing, so the builders had to switch to something else. At the time, one of the architects even said that if a fire broke out above the floors fireproofed using asbestos, the towers were coming down.

[Sergeant Bob]

Excerpt from a previous thread

The problems began when the space agency switched to materials and parts that were considered more "environmentally friendly," according to a NASA report obtained by WorldNetDaily.

In 1997, during the 87th space shuttle mission, similar tile damage was done during launch when the external tank foam crashed into them during the stress of takeoff. NASA knows that problem occurred again on this Columbia launch. However, the agency is not certain this was the cause of the disintegration of the craft upon re-entry.

The alarming report continued: "The pattern of hits did not follow aerodynamic expectations, and the number, size and severity of hits were abnormal. Three hundred and eight hits were counted during the inspection, one-hundred and thirty two (132) were greater than one inch. Some of the hits measured fifteen (15) inches long with depths measuring up to one and one-half (1 1/2) inches. Considering that the depth of the tile is two (2) inches, a 75% penetration depth had been reached. Over one hundred (100) tiles have been removed from the Columbia because they were irreparable. The inspection revealed the damage, now the 'detective process' began."

NASA probed exact same glitch of insulation striking tiles in 1997 (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30824)

Does safety at NASA run second to political pressure?
-------------------------------------------------------
The STS-86 mission revealed a similar damage pattern but to a much lesser degree than STS-87. The STS-86 tile damage was accepted ruled as an unexplained anomaly because it was a night launch and did not provide the opportunity for the photographic evidence the STS-87 mission did. A review of the records of the STS-86 records revealed that a change to the type of foam was used on the external tank. This event is significant because the pattern of damage on this flight was similar to STS-87 but to a much lesser degree. The reason for the change in the type of foam is due to the desire of NASA to use "environmentally friendly" materials in the space program. Freon was used in the production of the previous foam. This method was eliminated in favor of foam that did not require freon for its production. MSFC is investigating the consideration that some characteristics of the new foam may not be known for the ascent environment.

From NASA in 1997 (http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/katnik/sts87-12-23.html)

[HBK]

LaVeigh, you sure your first name isn't Anton?

[Coronach]

At the time, one of the architects even said that if a fire broke out above the floors fireproofed using asbestos, the towers were coming down.Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that towers were proofed against smaller aircraft carrying less fuel and moving at slower rates than modern airliners. Nothing at all, I tell you. :scrutiny:

Mike

[Baba Louie]

How about this for a concept:

Don't drive a car, petrolium processing being the raping of precious long dead fossilized animals

How about this for a concept:

Don't consume any electricity

How about this for a concept:

Don't eat food you didn't raise, hunt and process yourself

How about this for a concept:

Use any wood or paper products, anything mined from Mother Earths precious ground

How about this for a concept:

Isn't that your position ML? It oughta be, based on your post.

The world would be better off if we were living in caves, chucking stone tipped spears at things for food and trying to master fire.

LMAO

Progress.

"We have met the enemy and he is us", pogo

Adios

[Brad Johnson]

Does safety at NASA run second to political pressure? Yes.

If safety came first, we wouldn't have 14 people dead. 7 from an o-ring that failed on a launch that Morton Thiokol engineers vehemently warned against but were overridden by project managers, and 7 from a vehicle reentry accident that was in all probability caused by impact damage from delaminated foam which was the direct result of forced adoption of an "environmentally friendly" insulating agent (which was also vehemently opposed by engineers who were overridden by project managers).

Brad

[Double Naught Spy]

I see there is a pretty good gap in the understanding of cause and effect.

Environmentalists did NOT destroy the space shuttle, WTC towers, etc. They have made considerable strides in getting the government and various companies to change over to more environmentally friendly materials. Since NASA has done this for much of their gear, the fault is with NASA or their engineers for not developing the needed technology to make the environmentally friendly materials as good as the materials replaced.

In particular to the WTC towers, the discontinued use of asbestos was not a result of environmentalists, but the health care profession. Generally speaking, asbestos doesn't pose much of an environmental threat out in the open. In confined spaces such as in buildings, most air systems do not actually flush out the air in any great amount and so the asbestos particles become trapped in the same areas where people are breathing. Being trapped allows for higher amounts to build up and then be respired.

According to the architect of the WTC towers, they were not built to handle extremely large quantity and high intensity fuel fires. That was actually not even a significant consideration. What was considered was to make the buildings be able to withstand a direct hit from the largest plane around at the time, the 727. This was in response to the Empire State Building being hit previous by a plane and surviving.

Engineers have noted that the insullation undoubtedly came off the steel beams during the impact and subsequent explosion of the fire. Hence the beams weakened and the buildings collapsed. What they usually don't say is that they really don't have any cost effective materials at this time that can withstand the huge physical forces (such as by an airliner flying into the building) and remain intact on the beams and still function fully to protect the beams from a highly intensive fires.

[jmbg29]

If you can't do something without fouling up the life support systems of the planet, don't do it.Words to live by!


Provided that one also employs a corollary bit of advice. To wit: never allow one's perception of reality, e.g. "the planet" to be swayed by watermelon* radicals.


*Watermelon: A 60's throwback and/or wannabe, that is a delightfully enviro shade of green on the outside, and Marxist red to his/her/its core.


"Sandy who?"

"Oh! Sandy Neesta!?!"

"We blowed him up." :rolleyes: :D

[Sodbuster]

The pattern of hits did not follow aerodynamic expectations
NASA is having a hard time with theory. Seems they had to test the theory that freezing temperatures are tough on rubber.

[Badger Arms]

Only one flame and a watermellon (like that) one at that. I feel blessed. Thaks for the research, I didn't have the article to go by when I posted, but I believe I'd read a few similar ones and it has been eating at me.Since NASA has done this for much of their gear, the fault is with NASA or their engineers for not developing the needed technology to make the environmentally friendly materials as good as the materials replaced.Okay, I'll agree partially. NASA was and is being swayed by extreemist freaks who think the environment is the priority in everything. Fact is, engineers cannot develop something that is impossible to develop. The switch was a political one only. Don't confuse politics with budgetary, manegerial, or engineering. All of these are unique. the broken part was the political one in this case.Don't blame the people who happened to point out the uncomfortable facts.It's not a fact, it's an opinion. And you have a right to yours also. Unfortunately, your statements show that you have a juvenile understanding of humanity and ecology. This is a world of compromises and an absolutist attitude kills people.

[Wildalaska]

This is a world of compromises and an absolutist attitude kills people.

Correct...now make sure you remember that if anyone asks about the 2nd A

WildgoodconceptAlaska

[Sergeant Bob]

Some very interesting reading is an interveiw with Guy Thibodaux, NACA/NASA engineer and rocket propulsion expert, former Chief of the Propulsion and Power Division at the Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX.

Interviewers: Robbie E. Davis-Floyd and Kenneth J. Cox

Interview Dates: Sept. 9-10, 1996

The interveiw is in three parts, and is very informative. It's real long but I found it fascinating. Here is an excerpt where he discusses the SRB's. This is from Part 3 of the interveiw.

Robbie: What is there to learn that they haven't learned?

Guy: They could learn, for example, that good design matters more than bureaucratic procedure. What Max and I proposed at first was that the solid rocket would be made in one piece, not with these joints like the Challenger failed with. If you built it at a site where you could transport it to the Cape it would all be in one piece. But that wasn't allowed, because then it couldn't be put up for bids. The only company that could have built it in one piece was right next to the Cape. Anywhere else and you couldn't transport it, it would be too big. So the whole reason it was cut in half and made in two pieces was so more than one company could bid on it, because that's the bureaucratic rule.

This is a link to all of the interveiws.
ORAL HISTORIES FROM THE PIONEERS OF AMERICA'S SPACE PROGRAM (http://space.systems.org/oh/thibodaux/part_1.htm)

[Glock Glockler]

Correct...now make sure you remember that if anyone asks about the 2nd A

Who's being absolutist about the 2nd, no one here thinks nukes should be legal?:)

[Khornet]

because much of the 'science' on which environmentalism is based is, in fact, not science. It's junk science.

Dioxin is turning out not to be the poison it was painted to be.
Global warming remains a theory with lots of serious weaknesses, but it's now a religion and can't be debated.
Asbestos is safe if properly installed and left alone, but we are now required to treat it like plutonium, and rip it all out, thus releasing it into the atmosphere.
Rachel Carson notwithstanding, DDT isn't anywhere near as dangerous as we are told....and millions of third-worlders must die of malaria to appease our environmentails sensibilities.
Chlorine is next on the Green hit list, so stand by for cholera epidemics.
Secondhand smoke is not a carcinogen, and there is absolutely no good data to say it is, but smokers must be treated like lepers.

I know, I know....many believe sincerely in environmentalism. But there are serious flaws in the supporting research, and when skeptics speak up they are shouted down. Environmentalism is not scientific anymore, probably never was. It's a religion now. That religion is a powerful political force, and that political force is what the shuttle crew died for. NASA is a very political organization, just like the CDC.

[Leatherneck]

A couple of points.

First, STS launches can never be risk-free. If you had zero risk, you'd have zero launches. The whole shuttle team operates with full knowledge of this. NASA pioneered the risk assessment methodology in use in all aviation testing today.

Balancing environmental concerns against military (and space-exploration) needs in testing and training has traditionally leaned in favor of the enviro-nazis. But the price for degraded testing or training is always paid in blood. Look at the current resistance on Capitol Hill and in the media to the DOD efforts to ease some specific environmental constraints on realistic training. If those constraints are not eased the blood price will be paid and the fiscal bill will be paid with tax moneys. Whether it's lack of accuracy in bombing because bombing ranges have been closed, or lack of effective sonar defenses for ships because of some disoriented whales, or lack of armor unit effectiveness because of desert tortoise habitat: the price will be paid. Not to say we should be heedless of the environment, but some of this stuff approaches insanity.

TC
TFL Survivor

[Khornet]

MISANTHROPIC ENVIRONMENTALISM

The viewpoint of today's environmentalist can be summarized this way: all human needs must take a back seat to environmental needs, however small. The existence of the smallest remnant of a vanishing species of tiny creatures is sufficient to prevent the construction of facilities which will benefit the lives of millions of humans. The presence of a single rare bug or bird is sufficient to prevent a citizen from building a house on his land. The potential detrimental effect on local butterflies of a new method of protecting crops from insect pests is sufficient to prevent the use of technology which may feed starving millions.

Mark Twain, when confronted with a particularly outrageous instance of ingratitude, would remark, "That was downright French of him." I think we can say that today's environmentalists are being equally French, because the source and foundation of all environmentalism is human, not animal or vegetable.

The noble wolf, Sacred Cow of the environmental movement, has never believed in game laws. He will gorge himself on prey species until the supply becomes so low that he begins to starve. The pack must then either move or dwindle in numbers, and in its new location it will behave the same way. Locusts will strip the land entirely bare in a day, sparing no living thing. Bacteria and viruses will ravage their host environment until the creature dies, and they with it. What limits the Animal Kingdom's exploitation of the earth's resources is the starvation it cyclically produces, forcing migration or mass die-off.

Only Man has game laws. Only Man decides to limit his kill and his harvest. Only Man practices stewardship of the land. He is the only defender of the environment, but, like all living creatures, he must exploit it to live. Like all his fellow inhabitants of the earth, his actions result in extinction of some species and the flourishing of others. While it is true that his technology permits exploitation on a scale impossible for other species, this power is balanced by an understanding and appreciation of the natural world that no bacterium or wolf has ever felt. That he has made destructive mistakes is nothing to the point, for as his understanding has grown, he has recognized them, regretted them, and resolved to do better. That environmentalists have driven many of these resolutions is also beside my point; it's their misanthropy with which I take issue.

The contempt for Man so characteristic of the environmental movement is not only self-righteous and arrogant; it is also a complete misunderstanding of nature, a self-serving anthropomorphizing of the universe. Man's obliteration of the Snail darter or the Buffalo is no more or less reprehensible than the countless extinctions perpetrated throughout the history of life on earth by one animal species on another. The possible elimination of an animal is not sufficient reason to stop the building of the dam, though that does not mean it should be built without thought of its effect on the natural world. But it does mean that the benefits to Man of his projects are of equal, and, sometimes, greater weight than the impact on the non-human world, because the prosperity of the human race is important to all the other species for one simple reason: we're the only ones who really give a damn. Michael R. Bowen M.D.

[Badger Arms]

Correct...now make sure you remember that if anyone asks about the 2nd AThe 2nd ammendment is the most severely limited of all freedoms that are supposed to be guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Who's said that any of the modern arguments... especially mine and those heard on this board... are absolutist? The code on firearms is huge. You can't own them if you're convicted of a felony, certain misdemeanors, under an unfounded restraining order based on the word of one person and without any appeal procedure, if you're under 21, if you live in certain states. There are a wealth of limitations on firearms types, barrel length, caliber, bullet construction, magazine capacity, pistol grips, trunions, muzzle devices, etc. etc. We can't own entire classes of firearms.

[Kinsman]

First, STS launches can never be risk-free. If you had zero risk, you'd have zero launches. The whole shuttle team operates with full knowledge of this. NASA pioneered the risk assessment methodology in use in all aviation testing today.

Aviation is dangerous. Space flight is super-duper dangerous. Considering that those rockets are hugely complex machines sitting on all that fuel, I'm really surprised at the level of success that we have with this.

That being said, NASA spends a ton of money.....I'm not at all sure that it's really worth it, seeing some of the "effects of gamma-rays-on man-in-the-moon-marigolds" studies they seem to do.

[rock jock]

If you can't do something without fouling up the life support systems of the planet, don't do it.
NASA should be exempted from the demands for more eco-friendly construction materials. A cost-benefit analysis would easily show that the benefits we humans (and the planet for that matter) realize from the technology borne of the space program infinitely outweigh the small potential contribution to pollution from the space shuttle. Of course, environmentalist whackos would need to employ some level of logic to understand this.

[grampster]

khornet,

Well said!

grampster

[Malone LaVeigh]

So much ad homeniem, straw man attacks and er, less than perfect reasoning here (you all know who you are) that I hesitate to respond. Oh, where to begin...

BenW:

"Glass houses...." etc.

I never said space exploration was a bad thing. Just that if we're going to do something, we ought to do it the right way and know the limits of what we can use. Technical efficiency is not the only criterion for selection of technologies or materials. What would you say if someone discovered that aborted fetuses made the best space shuttle insulators?

Baba Louie:

Every time there is a suggestion of any limitations on human activity for environmental concerns, someone can be counted on to come through with that tired old chestnut, "Why don't you go live in a cave?" I responded to it a lot better when I gave a damn over on TFL, you could look it up if you want to learn something. Suffice to say I live in this world, and until we find a better way of doing so, I'll stick around to be a pain in your neck.

jmbg:

"Awk! Watermellon! Uh hyuck!" Get back to me when you think of something original to say.

Khornet:

I agree on some of those, but can't wait to hear your sources on others.

Dioxin: There's plenty of evidence on its toxcicity. Anyway, that's what they were teaching when I studied environmental toxicology. (My professor was a well-known Republican who headed up Gov. Deukmajian's Prop 65 panel. Hardly an environmentalist.) Most of the evidence is clinical. Epidemiological evidence is less clear. They didn't see much human health damage in Seveso, but there's not enough data to go on there.

Asbestos: "Safe" isn't exactly the right word. It can be pretty inactive if left in a building, as long as the building stays intact. Don't breathe hard in an earthquake. Anyay, that's a judgement call that I think should sometimes go for removal, some times not.

DDT: Low mammalian toxicity. Very high environmental damage, and very persistent. There are better ways to control mosquitos.

Chlorine: Has a lot of good, important uses, but ought to be controlled better.

Secondhand smoke: You're kidding, right? It stops being a carcinogen if you breathe it from someone elses cig?

rock jock:

[NASA should be exempt]

Who else? The military, of course. And "homeland security", no doubt. The poor, and, naturally "working families." Ther rich can always buy their way out. People with religious objections, I'm sure.

No, sorry, everyone has to be potty trained, not just environmentalists...

[rock jock]

Malone,

I hope you never try your hand in the business world. You will be sorely disappointed.

[Badger Arms]

Suffice to say I live in this world, and until we find a better way of doing so, I'll stick around to be a pain in your neck.Hmmm, seems that this is the point of many an elitest academic. When you go and live in a cave, I'll take you seriously. Until then, I suspect you will still use your automobile which contributes to global warming, hook up to electricity generated by coal, nuclear, or hydro-electric power (all lambasted by environmentalists) and I suspect your computer was made with all sorts of polutants involved in the process. Do you wear hemp shoes or do you contribute the the torture and murder of cows? Give me a break, we all have to draw the proverbial line somewhere. For some, this poses some serious ethical delima. For me, it's simple logic. I don't spray DDT and I don't pour oil in storm drains. I do use computers, freon in my old fridge, and I have no problem using paints made with VOC.

BTW, why are you posting on a Firearms themed forum?

The fact that you have a computer negates your argument. You can try to be a pain in my neck, but in reality, I don't take you that seriously. You are in the minority and I chuckle at your ignorance. Think I've wasted enough calories. Good day.

[Malone LaVeigh]

rock-jock:

I think I demonstrated a pretty good understanding above. Everyone has their hand out and wants to be treated special.

Treating everyone the same... what a commie idea...

[Edited to specify my correspondent and fix a typo.]

[Malone LaVeigh]

Good idea, BA, I'll go bury my head in the sand, too.

BTW, why are you posting on a Firearms themed forum?I could ask the same question of you.

[Badger Arms]

I'll spell it out for you... Why are you posting on a firearms themed board? Are you a firearms fan? Are you a gun owner? Are you a gun rights activist? If you're just here to be a thorn in our side, fine. Most of the posters here seem to have a common background and world view that generally runs counter to the type of posts I see from you.

[Khornet]

Secondhand smoke: there is NO data demonstrating a link to cancer. I mean NONE. Not one credible, properly executed study. Seriously. Now I'm not claiming it's good for you; I am however pointing out that when there isn't any good evidence, it's wrong to do what we're doing. Also consider that the vast majority of smokers do not develop lung cancer--God knows why--so why would bystanders develop it? Junk science, harnessed to snooty politics.

Dioxin: Love Canal was a case of panic. If I recall correctly, they haven't been able to link a single cancer to it. There is a skin condition called chloracne whic occurs with serious exposure, but no other human illnesses have been demonstrated. Toxicity data comes from--you guessed it-- lab animals with titanic exposures. Yet we ruined many lives over it. Junk science.

DDT: emerging data show that properly handled it causes minimal environmental damage. That includes bird eggs, etc. But we are being asked to ban it entirely. And no, there isn't anything as cheap and effective as DDT. And the alternatives all involve....tampering with the environment.

Asbestos: all illnesses have been associated with heavy exposure to specific types. I have some of these folks as patients. But that calls for wiser use of asbestos, not the draconian bans and the runaway litigation, which have ruined more lives than asbestos ever did.

Environmentalism is like DDT, Malone: a good thing when done with restraint and common sense, and a deadly poison when driven by emotion and political exploitation. That all I'm trying to say.

[Leatherneck]

*AHEM*
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
The personal stuff just distracts from the discussion, guys.

TC
TFL Survivor

[BenW]

Technical efficiency is not the only criterion for selection of technologies or materials. What would you say if someone discovered that aborted fetuses made the best space shuttle insulators?
Malone -- Obviously I would say find something else. It's easy to throw out extremes. What would you say if the only way to guarantee astronaut safety is to use CFC laden products instead of CFC free products? At a few shuttle launches a year we're not killing our life support system by using CFC; we're protecting the lives of astronauts, and we're making scientific discoveries (including those related to environmental protection -- see shuttle SAR imagery of South American rainforests) that more than benefit humankind compared to any harm the production of shuttle components does.

I'm not against any reasonable environmental protection in the assembly of shuttle components, vehicles, or the plastic Three Stooges coffee cup sitting on my desk. Reasonable and scientifically (versus emotionally) valid being the key operators.

[Mute]

Let's apply Malone's view on how environmentalism works. His level of sacrifice for the environment is enough. The rest of your's is not and therefore should be made to conform to his version by government intervention.

To admit otherwise would be to admit his own hypocrisy. He doesn't need to "go live in a cave" to demonstrate this.

[H Romberg]

While I disagree with the absolute aspect of Malone's first post in this thread, he's got a point that the counter-arguments were pretty personal. This is the high road right? Courtesy is free.

[Khornet]

Let's keep it civil.

[Malone LaVeigh]

When someone's cordial and makes valid points like Khornet, I acknowledge them. At least that's what I was trying to do. As for the rest, if you're going to try railroading me with tired rhetoric, expect a more direct response.

Speaking of which...

Most of the posters here seem to have a common background and world view that generally runs counter to the type of posts I see from you.If I accomplish nothing else here, I hope I can get some folks to examine some of the prevalent preconceptions around here. Excuse me if you find me lacking in your idea of political correctness. If you really want answers to any of your questions, do a search. I'm a pretty open book here, except I've decided to stay anonymous, mostly because of people who seem to get really mad that I don't think the way they think I should.

[Malone LaVeigh]

It's easy to throw out extremes. What would you say if the only way to guarantee astronaut safety is to use CFC laden products instead of CFC free products?If it were the only way, I'd say to find a way to mitigate the use, and go ahead. But that's highly unlikely. I can remember when the aerospace industry claimed that there was absolutely no substitute for whale oil in guided missile components. Seriously. I also remember when the auto industry claimed it would go bankrupt if they had to install exhaust scrubbers. You'll have to excuse me if I'm a little skeptical. I'll bet if CFCs became prohibitively expensive, a good substitute would be found.

I love people who think human industriousness can solve all of our problems except for making the world a better place.

[BenW]

I love people who think human industriousness can solve all of our problems except for making the world a better place.

It all depends on your concept of "a better place." Thanks for assuming mine is the same as yours.

[DaveB]

It all depends on your concept of "a better place." Thanks for assuming mine is the same as yours.

That's right, Malone. Many people WANT to live in a place that reminds them of Blade Runner.

What were you thinking?

db

[Khornet]

What makes this world a less-than-perfect place is human nature, not human technology.

Besides, what you mean 'better'? Kyoto was supposed to make this world 'better'; it wouldn't have, and that's why it failed even in Kyoto.

I'm a devoted fly fisherman. I want, as much as the next guy, to keep our rivers pure etc. And if a measure has a chance of working, even though the data may not be all that strong, I'll buy it IF the associated costs are not too great. On the other hand, if you want me to change my entire way of life and incur huge economic cost, you'd better have good data. And if your data is convincing, and the threat is as great as you claim, and your solution will actually address it, I'd be insane not to agree. I just don't see that happening very much, folks.

We need good science, and we're not getting it. We all lose.

[BenW]

Many people WANT to live in a place that reminds them of Blade Runner.
Versus a sterile, handholding, insipidly annoying place that reminds them of Star Trek (except for the original series)? Guilty. :)

[jmbg29]

I love people who think human industriousness can solve all of our problems except for making the world a better place.Didn't your parents, or your High school health teacher, warn you of the dangers of self-love?

[Zander]

If it were the only way, I'd say to find a way to mitigate the use, and go ahead. But that's highly unlikely.What's highly unlikely is that envirowackos will ever settle for other than 'chasing the nth degree'. After all, if CAFE standards can be set at 27mpg, why not just make it 37mpg or 47mpg? The fact that thousands of people die each year because their crackerboxes' crumple zones aren't quite large enough is of no consequence, eh?

And let me guess...your solution would be to ban SUVs.

I'll bet if CFCs became prohibitively expensive, a good substitute would be found.Freon was a perfectly good refrigerant until the envirowackos used junk science to ban it. The substitute is decidedly inferior.

Just as the material for insulating the shuttle is decidedly inferior.

I love people who think human industriousness can solve all of our problems except for making the world a better place.What emotion do you reserve for those who think that it's perfectly acceptable for millions of fellow human beings to die needlessly so that the envirowackos can make the world a "better place"?