Newsgroup sci.environment 114160

Directory

In article <01bbfcb1$a9869100$63a015a5@queklc.singnet.com.sg>,
   "QUEK LENG CHUANG"  wrote:
>Path: 
news.hal-pc.org!insync!news-xfer.netaxs.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub
1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.
net!news.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-a
na-7.sprintlink.net!news.aloha.net!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!lantana
singnet.com.sg!usenet
>From: "QUEK LENG CHUANG" 
>Newsgroups: sci.engr.chem,sci.environment,talk.environment,tw.environment
>Subject: Solvent Recovery
>Date: 7 Jan 1997 15:46:07 GMT
>Organization: 27 PRIMROSE AVE
>Lines: 10
>Message-ID: <01bbfcb1$a9869100$63a015a5@queklc.singnet.com.sg>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ts900-1215.singnet.com.sg
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155
>Xref: news.hal-pc.org sci.engr.chem:14212 sci.environment:66177 
talk.environment:62532
>Status: N
>
>I am assessing systems for solvent recovery - from paint waste, IPA, and a
>myriad of other organic solvents (About  25 T/day).  I would very much 
like
>to hear about :
>a.  Problems with distillation systems
>b.  Alternative solutions
>c.  Markets for recovered solvent
>
>Your opinions will be treasured .  Thanks
>
>
It's difficult to discuss problems with distillation systems unless you get 
much more specific about your process.  What flow rates and compositions do 
you want to distill, what specifications exist for hydrocarbon and/or 
aqueous streams, what are you planning to use to boil and condense your 
column's streams, what pressure do you want to operate at, etc.?

In article <5auqdq$d0q@camel1.mindspring.com>,
   gmbeasley@mindspring.com (RosalieAnn Beasley) wrote:
>Path: 
news.hal-pc.org!insync!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.spr
intlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnpl
anet.com!news.mindspring.com!usenet
>From: gmbeasley@mindspring.com (RosalieAnn Beasley)
>Newsgroups: sci.engr.chem,sci.environment,talk.environment,tw.environment
>Subject: Re: Solvent Recovery
>Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 00:43:08 GMT
>Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.
>Lines: 18
>Message-ID: <5auqdq$d0q@camel1.mindspring.com>
>References: <01bbfcb1$a9869100$63a015a5@queklc.singnet.com.sg>
>Reply-To: gmbeasley@mindspring.com
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ip84.baltimore2.md.pub-ip.psi.net
>X-Server-Date: 8 Jan 1997 00:40:26 GMT
>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
>Xref: news.hal-pc.org sci.engr.chem:14224 sci.environment:66231 
talk.environment:62619
>Status: N
>
>"QUEK LENG CHUANG"  wrote:
>
>>I am assessing systems for solvent recovery - from paint waste, IPA, and 
a
>>myriad of other organic solvents (About  25 T/day).  I would very much 
like
>>to hear about :
>>a.  Problems with distillation systems
>
>Main problem is that the still is not electrically safe for use with
>flammable liquids, and they sometimes blow up (the commercial ones).
>
>>b.  Alternative solutions
>>c.  Markets for recovered solvent
>
>>Your opinions will be treasured .  Thanks
>
>
>
>
They blow up because of operator error, not equipment design problems.  The 
refinery I work at distills nothing but flammable liquids, and they almost 
never have a problem (yes, rare accidents still happen).

08 Jan 1997 10:46:55 +1300 
Tony Plate wrote:
> 
> A physical mechanisim by which EMFs could increase the risk
> of cancer was recently published.  The paper suggests that
> electromagnetic fields can attract and concentrate radon
> daughter nuclei.  This provides a plausible causal
> relationship between exposure to EMF and increased risk of
> cancer cancer, something which had been missing up until
> now.
	Hi Tony. This information seems interesting. However, after 
	having looked at it via the URL you provided, there are quite
	a few issues puzzeling me in the study.
	For a starter: If radon daughters is the causal link between 
	EMF and cancer, shouldn't one expect a rather simple dose-response
	between EMF and LUNG-CANCER?
	AFAIK the "popular" cancer related to EMF is leukemia, isn't it? 
	Do you find the rationalization in the paper of the eventual 
	link between Radon-dughters and leukemia to be convincing?
	Another point I spotted in the results: The authors report a tenfold
	increase of decay enhancement between house A and F, which they 
	explicitly state have the same radon background level. 
	Could not this indicate substantial methodologicical problems?
> 'Enhanced Deposition of Radon Daughter Nuclei in the
> Vicinity of Power Frequency Electromagnetic Fields', Denis L
> Henshaw, Andrew N Ross, A Peter Fews and Alan W Preece, The
> International Journal of Radiation Biology, 14th February
> 1996.
> 
> See
> http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/research/track_analysis/emf_radon_prgb.html
> for more details, including abstract, summary and references.
> 
> From that site:
> 
> > Electromagnetic fields concentrate radon decay products new
> > evidence in links with cancer published Wednesday 14th
> > February 1996
> >
> > ...
> > Scientists at Bristol University have found new evidence
> > which may help explain the link between exposure to
> > electromagnetic fields associated with electrical wiring and
> > overhead power lines, and the incidence of certain types of
> > cancer. They have discovered that the mains leads to
> > ordinary domestic electrical appliances are able to attract
> > the radioactive products of radon present in everyday room
> > air.
> >
> > They have found evidence in similar studies that the same
> > harmful concentrations of radon products may be present
> > around overhead power lines. The electromagnetic fields
> > associated with the lines can therefore concentrate a
> > cocktail of potential carcinogens.
> >
> 
> --
> Tony Plate                                       Voice: +64-4-472-1000 ext 8578
> Dept of Comp Sci, Victoria University            Fax: +64-4-495-5232
> P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand            Email: tap@comp.vuw.ac.nz
> http://www.comp.vuw.ac.nz/Staff/Tony-Plate.html
	It's a pity they forgot to put some TASTRACK plates before
	the CRT on the computer they were writing the paper on :-)
-- 
	Cassanders
	"An approximate answer to the right question is worth a good 
	deal more than an exact answer to an approximate problem"
						John Tukey

On Tue, 07 Jan 1997 18:47:04 GMT, brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
wrote:
> 
> I would say the primary contrast is that Hanson tries to use
> thermodynamics to support his view of an economy.  He has thus proven
> simply that he knows little of either.
> 
  Of all the posts and paragraphs Jay Hanson has published, 
  including his own writing and others,   what percentage make 
  any reference to entropy?
  The entropy stuff is crap but it's interesting to see people 
  jump on this.  Tells me they don't have other good arguments 
  to make regarding the huge mass of testimony by real 
  professionals in the environmental fields.
-----------------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
  http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210
  http://www.netcom.com/~masonc (slow,wait)
Vickery on the "Deficit" and notes on Vickrey
  http://www.netcom.com/~masonc/vickrey.html
  http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210/vickrey.html
 The Boskin report on the CPI, itself and links:
   http://www.naz.com/personal/masonc/boskin.html
---------------------------------------------------

valerie,
the key to selecting treatment is dependent on the type of waste spilled 
in the refinery.  some considerations, free product present, quantity of 
spill, components of the spill, extent of spill, and related issues.
is your spill on the soil only, on water only, on water and soil?  your 
question is a little bit vauge.  you may want to spell out some specifics 
so it would be answered appropriately.
cris 

Gerfried Cebrat wrote:
> 
> In Austria we had several incineration facilities in the cement industry,
> nowadays cement comes to a large part from the surrounding countries in
> the east of Europe with no strict environmental regulations and therefore
> lower production costs.
I suspect labor is a bigger factor - environmental controls at most
cement plants make up a relatively small fraction of total capitol
costs.
> According to my knowledge the incineration in the cement industry has two
> disadvantages and one advantage:
> + the temperature has to be kept high enough for process reason to avoid
> from dioxine and furane formation. ( In these days it was found out that
> the temperature to prevent from dioxine and furane formation is much
> lower than originally thought.)
dioxin formation in cement kilns is like that for other combustion
devices in some respects.  the higher the air pollution control device
inlet temp the higher the dioxins.  the use of waste as fuel is
unrelated.
> - the NOx emission is high due to the high process temperature
true but again unrelated to waste fuel use.  in fact some waste fuel
burning cement kilns have decreased NOx when using waste fuel use
> - the emision regulations for waste incineration do not apply, much
> higher emission values are allowed compared to municipal incineration
> plants.
perhaps, depending on the country, the question is are the cement kiln
emissions new emissions or would they be there no matter what fuel was
used?  an incinerator produces new emissions without a useful product. 
cement kilns produce cement no matter what the fuel.  in a cement kiln
waste can be burned without adding to the burden on the environment.
> best regards
> --
> DI. Gerfried Cebrat
>  Adress: Am Schlosshang 4, A- 8075 Hart bei Graz, Styria, Austria, Europe
>  Tel. +43/316/49 14 49, Fax: upon request
>  email: g.cebrat@aon.at Homepage:
> http://www.schlund.de/privat/CebratGerfried
Please see our WEB site for more info.
-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------
| David Gossman             | Solutions for the Environment |
| President                 |        GCI Solutions          |
| Gossman Consulting, Inc.  |   http://gcisolutions.com     |
| dgossman@concentric.net   |                               |
 -----------------------------------------------------------

Mark Friesel  wrote:
> Well- this definition of yours is so strange I confess I'm at a loss. 
> The Republicans cut the income tax for the wealthy, but this is not 
> downsizing.  The DOE eliminated many of the individuals on its payroll 
> at the national labs but this is not downsizing.  The government 
> drastically reduced the amount of funding for research, but this is not 
> downsizing.  I'm afraid I disagree with you, and unless you agree with 
> me, you're wrong.  Pretty easy.  The answer then is that you can't 
> answer either.
The total proportion of the national wealth taken by the government
has remained constant under all these changes.  Thus cuts in one place
were cancelled by expansion in other places.
Furthermore we have more regulations, and more intervention by
government into private uses of private property than there used to
be, so while taxes have remained constant over the past few years,
total takings have increased.
Thus government continues to expand, though at a slower rate than
previously.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because 
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this 
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald       jamesd@echeque.com

Rick,
Amazing Environmental Organization WebDirectory! is the largest and
most popular environment web site directory on the Net. It is built
into every copy of Netscape Navigator (Net Search button "Specialized
guides"). It has been the world-wide de facto standard environment
search engine since May 1994. Contains tens of thousands of web sites
from over 100 countries. Completely free. Check it out at:
http://www.webdirectory.com

Mark Friesel wrote:
> 
> Paul Hager wrote:
> >
> ....
> 
> >
> > If the deficit was created as an excuse to eliminate social programs,
> > then Demos were complicit in it.  Actually, the rise in the deficit
> > parallels the rise in the huge middle-class entitlement programs.
> > These programs -- like SS -- are wasteful, a bad deal for everyone
> > including recipients, and ultimately unsustainable without cutting
> > benefits and raising taxes.
Just what is an entitlement program?  Is it not an entitlement?  Is it my
fault that the government forces me to contribute to a retirement plan
called Social Security for 30 or 40 years, and then fails to invest the
money in growth stocks or industry or real estate which will keep pace
with the government created inflation.  Is it my fault that the government
has created a Ponzi scheme in Social Security and instead of investing
the deposits from the early contributors (investors) to provide return on
investment (growth); instead chooses to squander the money on world-wide
nuclear adventuring and cold war games while playing the super-power hero.
I think not.  The government owes every dime it collected and promised.
The national debt was quadruppled or quintuppled under Pres. Reagan, not one
of your major eastern liberals.  The deficit was accumulated through Cold
War military spending, because the people were not willing to pay the price
for the Cold War directly through direct taxation.  So the cold warriors 
spent it anyway by borrowing money.  13.5 trillion dollars for "defense."
4 to 5 trillion for nuclear arms and their delivery platforms.  It's no
wonder our pension funds are bankrupt with gross government mismanagement
like that.
> The rise in the deficit parallels massive borrowing from Japan and
> elsewhere. SS is wasteful only because it is poorly managed, not because
> it is a bad idea.  Recipients who get part of their SS taxes back are
> far better off than those who get nothing back, no?  Projected
> unsustainability is nonsense.  But the real benefits of downsizing is
> the issue.
It doesn't matter where you borrow the money.  What matters is that you 
borrow the money period.  At least if you borrow it from American citizens
you theoretically get some of the interest back in taxes.
> > Hardly.  The correct approach is to unravel government control from
> > the top down and from large program to small.  It should be done in
> > a way to allow most of the parasitic federal bureaucracy to be
> > absorbed into the productive labor force.
> >
> 
> I reply:
> 
> The size of government is hardly the issue, but rather what it
> accomplishes and how it does so.  Downsizing has already cost the public
> and is going to cost them more.  Downsizing more will cost them more,
> there's really no two ways about it.
I agree.  When government meets the social needs of the people it is good.
When it does not it is bad and should be restored to operating efficiency
through massive reorganization.  But how can we expect those who messed it
up to fix it voluntarily?
Dennis Nelson