On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:08:44 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 13:29:33 -0500, Terry >
>wrote:
>
>> It's one of the reasons I switched to a different pay as you go.
>
>Just curious which one it was.

Bought a slide/keyboard phone from Alltel before they became part of
Verizon. 15 cents/min or /text. So far, the only place where I've
gotten the Searching-for-Service consistently has been a little road
out in Nevada, close to the Black Rock desert.

Oh, and the wife still has a Tracfone. Which still doesn't work south
of the TN border.
--
Best -- Terry

Omelet wrote:
>
> In article . com>,
> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> > Omelet wrote:
> > >
> > > In article . com>,
> > > "Pete C." > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > Not really. It's a "controlled" pollutant
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, it in *NOT* a pollutant, it is industrial waste. It like every
> > > > > > single other type of industrial waste is a *potential* pollutant,
> > > > > > however none of those wastes are ever a pollutant unless they are
> > > > > > discharged into the environment.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess it depends on your definition. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Well, you definition is at odds with the globally accepted definition.
> > >
> > > Toxic waste = pollution in my worlds...
> >
> > I guess you don't live on Earth.
> >
> > Waste = stored, processed, reclaimed, etc.
> >
> > Pollution = dumped
>
> It's buried in the ground...
>
> So is trash to landfills.
>
> = "dumped". <g>

*Everything* came out of the ground to begin with, people need to get
over silly ideas that it's somehow bad to put it back in the ground
(with suitable processing) when we're done with it.

On 11/7/2010 8:52 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Omelet wrote:
>>
>> In onster.com>,
>> "Pete > wrote:
>>
>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In onster.com>,
>>>> "Pete > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not really. It's a "controlled" pollutant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it in *NOT* a pollutant, it is industrial waste. It like every
>>>>>>> single other type of industrial waste is a *potential* pollutant,
>>>>>>> however none of those wastes are ever a pollutant unless they are
>>>>>>> discharged into the environment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess it depends on your definition. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, you definition is at odds with the globally accepted definition.
>>>>
>>>> Toxic waste = pollution in my worlds...
>>>
>>> I guess you don't live on Earth.
>>>
>>> Waste = stored, processed, reclaimed, etc.
>>>
>>> Pollution = dumped
>>
>> It's buried in the ground...
>>
>> So is trash to landfills.
>>
>> = "dumped".<g>
>
> *Everything* came out of the ground to begin with, people need to get
> over silly ideas that it's somehow bad to put it back in the ground
> (with suitable processing) when we're done with it.

You missed one key point. When we take "everything" out of the ground it
typically isn't concentrated. Typically when when put it in the ground
as waste it is.

And what is missing is you "suitable processing". Current practice of
your "suitable processing" is to dump concentrated waste into the
ground having first arranged some sort of containment hoping it won't
get breached.

On 11/7/2010 9:04 AM, Omelet wrote:
> In monster.com>,
> "Pete > wrote:
>
>> Omelet wrote:
>>>
>>> In onster.com>,
>>> "Pete > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In onster.com>,
>>>>> "Pete > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not really. It's a "controlled" pollutant
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it in *NOT* a pollutant, it is industrial waste. It like every
>>>>>>>> single other type of industrial waste is a *potential* pollutant,
>>>>>>>> however none of those wastes are ever a pollutant unless they are
>>>>>>>> discharged into the environment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess it depends on your definition. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you definition is at odds with the globally accepted definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Toxic waste = pollution in my worlds...
>>>>
>>>> I guess you don't live on Earth.
>>>>
>>>> Waste = stored, processed, reclaimed, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Pollution = dumped
>>>
>>> It's buried in the ground...
>>>
>>> So is trash to landfills.
>>>
>>> = "dumped".<g>
>>
>> *Everything* came out of the ground to begin with, people need to get
>> over silly ideas that it's somehow bad to put it back in the ground
>> (with suitable processing) when we're done with it.
>
> How about dumping processed sewage back into the water supply? Do you
> want to drink it in your tap water? ;-)
>
> I'm glad all of ours comes from underground aquifers. The additional
> filtering is a good thing.

Maybe, an aquifer is just an underground river. If some place where
concentrated waste were "suitably disposed of" (dump it into a
containment and hope it never leaks) starts to leak it can get into the
ground water.

And we have an interesting situation in PA. They discovered that
marcellus shale contains trapped methane (AKA "natural gas"). You can't
liberate the gas just by drilling they use a process called "fracking"
to pump high pressure chemical laden water into the ground.

This of course will not harm the ground water (or anything else) in any
way. And we do need the energy to heat out McMansions...

>
> But still, if one thinks about it, we are still drinking millions of
> years worth of animal and human pee etc.<g> All of the water on the
> planet has been thru somethings or someone's bladder more than once.
>
> So I understand what you are saying but I just don't agree with the
> semantics of it.

On Nov 7, 9:04*am, Omelet > wrote:
> How about dumping processed sewage back into the water supply? Do you
> want to drink it in your tap water? ;-)

Actually, I do. Port Huron, MI, is upstream from where the Detroit
water utility pulls water to purify it and ship it to me. My
wastewater
is treated and sent downstream to Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, and
out the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Although, I'm pretty sure that at each step along the way they
filter out the chunky stuff and either burn it, compost it, or
landfill it--everything that anaerobic digestion won't handle.

> I'm glad all of ours comes from underground aquifers. The additional
> filtering is a good thing.

I like surface water. It's softer and by the time they get done
cleaning it, it's tasty and healthful.

Cindy Hamilton

George wrote:
> Pete C. wrote:
>
>> *Everything* came out of the ground to begin with, people need to get
>> over silly ideas that it's somehow bad to put it back in the ground
>> (with suitable processing) when we're done with it.

Removing the uranium from the mine site and burning it in a reactor
results in a net decrease in radiation released into the environment
across time.

> You missed one key point. When we take "everything" out of the ground it
> typically isn't concentrated. Typically when when put it in the ground
> as waste it is.

Continuing my comment above - In exchange for the radiation being
concentrated into the present time.

> And what is missing is you "suitable processing". Current practice of
> your "suitable processing" is to dump concentrated waste into the
> ground having first arranged some sort of containment hoping it won't
> get breached.

If the waste were mixed into the mine tilings and returned to the mine
site the net result would still be less radiation released into the
environment across time but more of it concentrated in the next few
millenia. Not a good exchange but the issue is not as cut and dry as
"nuclear waste bad".

Omelet wrote:
>
> In article >, "Jean B." >
> wrote:
>
> > Omelet wrote:
> > > I'm wondering about LED bulbs? Do they actually exist other than in
> > > flashlights or strands of Christmas lights? I might be a tad behind the
> > > times. <g>
> >
> > Late reply. I just got back from Topkyo. There is an astonishing
> > array of LED bulbs there--two aisles of an large shop in
> > Akihabara. Wow!
>
> <lol> But I need to find them in the US, in the Austin area! :-)

Try Home Depot, Lowe's, Sam's, Costco, etc. All have quite a few
available in the Dallas area.

On Nov 9, 6:30*pm, Arri London > wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 8:13 pm, Arri London > wrote:
> > > sf wrote:
>
> > > > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:20:23 -0700, Arri London >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > It took nearly as long to
> > > > > load the dryer (for maximum efficiency) as to hang up the load anyway.
>
> > > > I find that impossible to believe.
>
> > > No doubt
>
> > Actually, I'm interested in how you load the dryer for
> > maximum efficiency. *I just shove the clothes in.
> > I make some minimal effort to ensure they're not
> > too tangled, but that's about it. *If I spend 20 seconds
> > on it, it's unusual.
>
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> Lightweight items are loaded first and run separately. That way the
> dryer warms up in preparation for the heavier items. Running them
> together takes longer (more energy).

You what? That makes zero sense.

--Bryan

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> On Nov 4, 8:13 pm, Arri London > wrote:
> > sf wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:20:23 -0700, Arri London >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > It took nearly as long to
> > > > load the dryer (for maximum efficiency) as to hang up the load anyway.
> >
> > > I find that impossible to believe.
> >
> > No doubt
>
> Actually, I'm interested in how you load the dryer for
> maximum efficiency. I just shove the clothes in.
> I make some minimal effort to ensure they're not
> too tangled, but that's about it. If I spend 20 seconds
> on it, it's unusual.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Lightweight items are loaded first and run separately. That way the
dryer warms up in preparation for the heavier items. Running them
together takes longer (more energy).

On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 16:21:18 -0800 (PST), Bryan
> wrote:

> On Nov 9, 6:30*pm, Arri London > wrote:
> > Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 4, 8:13 pm, Arri London > wrote:
> > > > sf wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:20:23 -0700, Arri London >
> > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > It took nearly as long to
> > > > > > load the dryer (for maximum efficiency) as to hang up the load anyway.
> >
> > > > > I find that impossible to believe.
> >
> > > > No doubt
> >
> > > Actually, I'm interested in how you load the dryer for
> > > maximum efficiency. *I just shove the clothes in.
> > > I make some minimal effort to ensure they're not
> > > too tangled, but that's about it. *If I spend 20 seconds
> > > on it, it's unusual.
> >
> > > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> > Lightweight items are loaded first and run separately. That way the
> > dryer warms up in preparation for the heavier items. Running them
> > together takes longer (more energy).
>
> You what? That makes zero sense.
>
I though the same thing.


--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Nov 9, 7:30*pm, Arri London > wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 8:13 pm, Arri London > wrote:
> > > sf wrote:
>
> > > > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:20:23 -0700, Arri London >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > It took nearly as long to
> > > > > load the dryer (for maximum efficiency) as to hang up the load anyway.
>
> > > > I find that impossible to believe.
>
> > > No doubt
>
> > Actually, I'm interested in how you load the dryer for
> > maximum efficiency. *I just shove the clothes in.
> > I make some minimal effort to ensure they're not
> > too tangled, but that's about it. *If I spend 20 seconds
> > on it, it's unusual.
>
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> Lightweight items are loaded first and run separately. That way the
> dryer warms up in preparation for the heavier items. Running them
> together takes longer (more energy).

Assuming a 5000-watt dryer, ten cents per kWh, it costs 50 cents
for a one-hour dryer load. I just can't get excited about optimizing
that down to 45 cents (figure pulled out of my butt for illustrative
purposes).

I separate my "good" things, because I don't want them ruined
by baking along with the heavy stuff. But that happens before
they even hit the washer. (I don't care if my tighty-whities
get baked along with the sweatshirts.)

I have a gas dryer, though, which apparently costs about
16 cents per load.

Thanks for the info, though.

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> On Nov 9, 7:30 pm, Arri London > wrote:
> > Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 4, 8:13 pm, Arri London > wrote:
> > > > sf wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:20:23 -0700, Arri London >
> > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > It took nearly as long to
> > > > > > load the dryer (for maximum efficiency) as to hang up the load anyway.
> >
> > > > > I find that impossible to believe.
> >
> > > > No doubt
> >
> > > Actually, I'm interested in how you load the dryer for
> > > maximum efficiency. I just shove the clothes in.
> > > I make some minimal effort to ensure they're not
> > > too tangled, but that's about it. If I spend 20 seconds
> > > on it, it's unusual.
> >
> > > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> > Lightweight items are loaded first and run separately. That way the
> > dryer warms up in preparation for the heavier items. Running them
> > together takes longer (more energy).
>
> Assuming a 5000-watt dryer, ten cents per kWh, it costs 50 cents
> for a one-hour dryer load. I just can't get excited about optimizing
> that down to 45 cents (figure pulled out of my butt for illustrative
> purposes).
>
> I separate my "good" things, because I don't want them ruined
> by baking along with the heavy stuff. But that happens before
> they even hit the washer. (I don't care if my tighty-whities
> get baked along with the sweatshirts.)
>
> I have a gas dryer, though, which apparently costs about
> 16 cents per load.
>
> Thanks for the info, though.
>
> Cindy Hamilton


YMMV as always. Works for me. It doesn't take any longer to do the
drying, so might as well save the pennies.