Several news sources are reporting stories like this one:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3051493

Each year, about 4,700 people, according to the study's
author, die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen
component of smog along with small particles. Ethanol would
raise ozone levels, particularly in certain regions of the
country, including the Northeast and Los Angeles.

"It's not green in terms of air pollution," said study
author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University civil and
environmental engineering professor. "If you want to use
ethanol, fine, but don't do it based on health grounds.
It's no better than gasoline, apparently slightly worse."

Dear Mark Thorson:

On Apr 18, 12:17 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Several news sources are reporting stories like this one:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3051493

A fluff piece.

Does
NOx + ethanol (as a VOC) + visible light = ozone?

David A. Smith

On 18 Apr 2007 12:57:22 -0700, dlzc > wrote:

>Dear Mark Thorson:
>
>On Apr 18, 12:17 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>> Several news sources are reporting stories like this one:
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3051493
>
>A fluff piece.
>
>Does
>NOx + ethanol (as a VOC) + visible light = ozone?
>
>David A. Smith

In Hawaii, our gas stations are mandated to sell only gas with 10%
ethanol. You can buy no other kind. People are complaining about gas
mileage declining and one of the worst problems is gas motors for
boats. Apparently the water (?) separates out in those engines and
mucks up their out pricey board engines.

aloha,
beans

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Several news sources are reporting stories like this one:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3051493
>
> Each year, about 4,700 people, according to the study's
> author, die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen
> component of smog along with small particles. Ethanol would
> raise ozone levels, particularly in certain regions of the
> country, including the Northeast and Los Angeles.
>
> "It's not green in terms of air pollution," said study
> author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University civil and
> environmental engineering professor. "If you want to use
> ethanol, fine, but don't do it based on health grounds.
> It's no better than gasoline, apparently slightly worse."
What a load of bullshit.

#1, ozone is not a "particle"; it's a variant molecule of oxygen.

#2, ozone protects the earth from solar radiation. The "hole" over the
South Pole is the result of florcarbons depleting the ozone layer in the
upper atmosphere.

#3 you're an idiot for posting this to an unrelated newsgroup.

Beer Drinking Dog wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Several news sources are reporting stories like this one:
> >
> > http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3051493
> >
> > Each year, about 4,700 people, according to the study's
> > author, die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen
> > component of smog along with small particles. Ethanol would
> > raise ozone levels, particularly in certain regions of the
> > country, including the Northeast and Los Angeles.
> >
> > "It's not green in terms of air pollution," said study
> > author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University civil and
> > environmental engineering professor. "If you want to use
> > ethanol, fine, but don't do it based on health grounds.
> > It's no better than gasoline, apparently slightly worse."
> What a load of bullshit.
>
> #1, ozone is not a "particle"; it's a variant molecule of oxygen.

Bzzzt! The quote does not say "ozone is a particle".
It says: "ozone, the unseen component of smog along with
small particles". But thanks for mustering your best
effort at reading comprehension. Better luck next time.

> #2, ozone protects the earth from solar radiation.
> The "hole" over the South Pole is the result of florcarbons
> depleting the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere.

You are confusing ground-level ozone with stratospheric
ozone. Here's a link to a site that may help you
understand the difference:

http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/

By the way, it's spelled "fluorocarbons".

> #3 you're an idiot for posting this to an unrelated newsgroup.

You must have missed the recent discussion of
ethanol and corn prices in this newsgroup.

With your level of confusion and lack of reading
comprehension, I find it amusing that you would
call anyone an "idiot".

Really stupid response ignored.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Beer Drinking Dog wrote:
>
>>Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>>>Several news sources are reporting stories like this one:
>>>
>>>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3051493
>>>
>>>Each year, about 4,700 people, according to the study's
>>>author, die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen
>>>component of smog along with small particles. Ethanol would
>>>raise ozone levels, particularly in certain regions of the
>>>country, including the Northeast and Los Angeles.
>>>
>>>"It's not green in terms of air pollution," said study
>>>author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University civil and
>>>environmental engineering professor. "If you want to use
>>>ethanol, fine, but don't do it based on health grounds.
>>>It's no better than gasoline, apparently slightly worse."
>>
>>What a load of bullshit.
>>
>>#1, ozone is not a "particle"; it's a variant molecule of oxygen.
>
>
> Bzzzt! The quote does not say "ozone is a particle".
> It says: "ozone, the unseen component of smog along with
> small particles". But thanks for mustering your best
> effort at reading comprehension. Better luck next time.
>
>
>>#2, ozone protects the earth from solar radiation.
>>The "hole" over the South Pole is the result of florcarbons
>>depleting the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere.
>
>
> You are confusing ground-level ozone with stratospheric
> ozone. Here's a link to a site that may help you
> understand the difference:
>
> http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/
>
> By the way, it's spelled "fluorocarbons".
>
>>#3 you're an idiot for posting this to an unrelated newsgroup.
>
>
> You must have missed the recent discussion of
> ethanol and corn prices in this newsgroup.
>
> With your level of confusion and lack of reading
> comprehension, I find it amusing that you would
> call anyone an "idiot".

Beer Drinking Dog wrote:
>
> Really stupid response ignored.

I'm amused you would call anything anybody else
says "stupid".

I demonstrated your inability to comprehend
simple English, your lack of knowledge about
ozone, and your cluelessness with regard
to recent discussions in this newsgroup.

I dismantled every point you attempted to make,
and in doing so proved you to be a fool.

I guess that doesn't leave you with many options.
You can make a snide top-posted comment, but
that's about it. You've shot your wad.

Better luck next time. :-)

> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Beer Drinking Dog wrote:
> >
> >>Mark Thorson wrote:
> >>
> >>>Several news sources are reporting stories like this one:
> >>>
> >>>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3051493
> >>>
> >>>Each year, about 4,700 people, according to the study's
> >>>author, die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen
> >>>component of smog along with small particles. Ethanol would
> >>>raise ozone levels, particularly in certain regions of the
> >>>country, including the Northeast and Los Angeles.
> >>>
> >>>"It's not green in terms of air pollution," said study
> >>>author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University civil and
> >>>environmental engineering professor. "If you want to use
> >>>ethanol, fine, but don't do it based on health grounds.
> >>>It's no better than gasoline, apparently slightly worse."
> >>
> >>What a load of bullshit.
> >>
> >>#1, ozone is not a "particle"; it's a variant molecule of oxygen.
> >
> >
> > Bzzzt! The quote does not say "ozone is a particle".
> > It says: "ozone, the unseen component of smog along with
> > small particles". But thanks for mustering your best
> > effort at reading comprehension. Better luck next time.
> >
> >
> >>#2, ozone protects the earth from solar radiation.
> >>The "hole" over the South Pole is the result of florcarbons
> >>depleting the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere.
> >
> >
> > You are confusing ground-level ozone with stratospheric
> > ozone. Here's a link to a site that may help you
> > understand the difference:
> >
> > http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/
> >
> > By the way, it's spelled "fluorocarbons".
> >
> >>#3 you're an idiot for posting this to an unrelated newsgroup.
> >
> >
> > You must have missed the recent discussion of
> > ethanol and corn prices in this newsgroup.
> >
> > With your level of confusion and lack of reading
> > comprehension, I find it amusing that you would
> > call anyone an "idiot".

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Beer Drinking Dog wrote:
>
>>Really stupid response ignored.
>
>
> I'm amused you would call anything anybody else
> says "stupid".
>
> I demonstrated your inability to comprehend
> simple English, your lack of knowledge about
> ozone, and your cluelessness with regard
> to recent discussions in this newsgroup.
>
> I dismantled every point you attempted to make,
> and in doing so proved you to be a fool.
>
> I guess that doesn't leave you with many options.
> You can make a snide top-posted comment, but
> that's about it. You've shot your wad.
>
> Better luck next time. :-)

You have such a little life that you respond to these sorts of posts
within seconds of them being posted?

I feel sorry for you. You're obviously too stupid to know when someone
is ****ing with your mind. Sorry, you don't seem to have much of a mind....


>
>
>>Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>>>Beer Drinking Dog wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark Thorson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Several news sources are reporting stories like this one:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3051493
>>>>>
>>>>>Each year, about 4,700 people, according to the study's
>>>>>author, die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen
>>>>>component of smog along with small particles. Ethanol would
>>>>>raise ozone levels, particularly in certain regions of the
>>>>>country, including the Northeast and Los Angeles.
>>>>>
>>>>>"It's not green in terms of air pollution," said study
>>>>>author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University civil and
>>>>>environmental engineering professor. "If you want to use
>>>>>ethanol, fine, but don't do it based on health grounds.
>>>>>It's no better than gasoline, apparently slightly worse."
>>>>
>>>>What a load of bullshit.
>>>>
>>>>#1, ozone is not a "particle"; it's a variant molecule of oxygen.
>>>
>>>
>>>Bzzzt! The quote does not say "ozone is a particle".
>>>It says: "ozone, the unseen component of smog along with
>>>small particles". But thanks for mustering your best
>>>effort at reading comprehension. Better luck next time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>#2, ozone protects the earth from solar radiation.
>>>>The "hole" over the South Pole is the result of florcarbons
>>>>depleting the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere.
>>>
>>>
>>>You are confusing ground-level ozone with stratospheric
>>>ozone. Here's a link to a site that may help you
>>>understand the difference:
>>>
>>>http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/
>>>
>>>By the way, it's spelled "fluorocarbons".
>>>
>>>
>>>>#3 you're an idiot for posting this to an unrelated newsgroup.
>>>
>>>
>>>You must have missed the recent discussion of
>>>ethanol and corn prices in this newsgroup.
>>>
>>>With your level of confusion and lack of reading
>>>comprehension, I find it amusing that you would
>>>call anyone an "idiot".

Beer Drinking Dog wrote:
>
> You have such a little life that you respond to these sorts of posts
> within seconds of them being posted?

That's the best you can do? I happen
to be on-line right now. Why would I not
reply to an attack when I become aware of it?
>
> I feel sorry for you. You're obviously too stupid to know when someone
> is ****ing with your mind. Sorry, you don't seem to have much of a mind....

I'm amused you would take that approach,
when you've just been exposed as a fool.

I demonstrated your inability to comprehend
simple English, your lack of knowledge about
ozone, and your cluelessness with regard
to recent discussions in this newsgroup.

I dismantled every point you attempted to make,
and in doing so proved you to be a fool.

I guess that doesn't leave you with many options.
You can make a snide top-posted comment, but
that's about it. You've shot your wad.

Better luck next time. :-)

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Beer Drinking Dog wrote:
>
>>You have such a little life that you respond to these sorts of posts
>>within seconds of them being posted?
>
>
> That's the best you can do? I happen
> to be on-line right now. Why would I not
> reply to an attack when I become aware of it?
>
>>I feel sorry for you. You're obviously too stupid to know when someone
>>is ****ing with your mind. Sorry, you don't seem to have much of a mind....
>
>
> I'm amused you would take that approach,
> when you've just been exposed as a fool.
>
> I demonstrated your inability to comprehend
> simple English, your lack of knowledge about
> ozone, and your cluelessness with regard
> to recent discussions in this newsgroup.
>
> I dismantled every point you attempted to make,
> and in doing so proved you to be a fool.
>
> I guess that doesn't leave you with many options.
> You can make a snide top-posted comment, but
> that's about it. You've shot your wad.
>
> Better luck next time. :-)

What's this preoccupation with shooting your wad? Are you some sexual
deviate?

I've already admitted as much to yanking your chain and you continue to
respond. Any normal thinking individual would ignore me. Who's the fool now?

Are you so dim as to not admit you've been played?

Beer Drinking Dog wrote:
>
> I've already admitted as much to yanking your chain and you continue to
> respond. Any normal thinking individual would ignore me. Who's the fool now?
>
> Are you so dim as to not admit you've been played?

That's your spin on it, now that you've been
totally exposed as a fool. I suppose that's
the best you can do to salvage some pretense
of dignity. A rather lame attempt, but the
only one you can manage.

I demonstrated your inability to comprehend
simple English, your lack of knowledge about
ozone, and your cluelessness with regard
to recent discussions in this newsgroup.

I dismantled every point you attempted to make,
and in doing so proved you to be a fool.

I guess that doesn't leave you with many options.
You can make a snide top-posted comment, but
that's about it. You've shot your wad.

Better luck next time. :-)

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Beer Drinking Dog wrote:
>
>>I've already admitted as much to yanking your chain and you continue to
>>respond. Any normal thinking individual would ignore me. Who's the fool now?
>>
>>Are you so dim as to not admit you've been played?
>
>
> That's your spin on it, now that you've been
> totally exposed as a fool. I suppose that's
> the best you can do to salvage some pretense
> of dignity. A rather lame attempt, but the
> only one you can manage.
>
> I demonstrated your inability to comprehend
> simple English, your lack of knowledge about
> ozone, and your cluelessness with regard
> to recent discussions in this newsgroup.
>
> I dismantled every point you attempted to make,
> and in doing so proved you to be a fool.
>
> I guess that doesn't leave you with many options.
> You can make a snide top-posted comment, but
> that's about it. You've shot your wad.
>
> Better luck next time. :-)

You're deluded if you think that's the best that you can do. I've been
messing with you from the beginning and you're apparently not even smart
enough to recognize it.

Again with the "shot your wad" reference? That's the best you can do?
Stop thinking with your dick and start thinking with your brain.

You "dismantled" every point because I crafted them to be so silly that
even a first-grader could find fault with them. But only you feel for
the trap. You'll no doubt notice that no one else has even posted to
this thread.

Obligitory e-moticon :->

Beer Drinking Dog wrote:
>
> You're deluded if you think that's the best that you can do.
> I've been messing with you from the beginning and you're
> apparently not even smart enough to recognize it.

That's the spin you're trying to put on it.
now that you've been totally discredited.

I demonstrated your inability to comprehend
simple English, your lack of knowledge about
ozone, and your cluelessness with regard
to recent discussions in this newsgroup.

I dismantled every point you attempted to make,
and in doing so proved you to be a fool.

I guess that doesn't leave you with many options.
You can make a snide top-posted comment, but
that's about it. You've shot your wad.

Better luck next time. :-)

Beer Drinking Dog wrote:

> Really stupid response ignored.

Top-poster plonked.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

On Apr 18, 12:17 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Several news sources are reporting stories like this one:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3051493
>
> Each year, about 4,700 people, according to the study's
> author, die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen
> component of smog along with small particles.Ethanolwould
> raise ozone levels, particularly in certain regions of the
> country, including the Northeast and Los Angeles.
>
> "It's not green in terms of air pollution," said study
> author Mark Jacobson, aStanfordUniversity civil and
> environmental engineering professor. "If you want to useethanol, fine, but don't do it based on health grounds.
> It's no better than gasoline, apparently slightly worse."

Sorry to burst your bubble, and the oil media's, but I cannot believe
any article slamming ethanol by Stanford University. The reason?
Stanford University houses the Petroleum Research Institute, which is
the elite engineering school for the oil trades and funded by every
major oil company on the planet. So, what I am saying, the report
quoted above will be biased and most likely falsified. If you want to
read some factual information and data related to smog emmision
reduction by ethanol read http://www.reapcoalition.org/pdfs/clearingtheair.pdf