Originally Posted by Suz X

I went to B&N this afternoon in search of study material to take your advice and set that right. What I discovered is that environmental information sans politics is in short supply. Nearly everything published is either an indictment of civilization or an indictment of environmentalism..... Any other suggestions would be welcome.

Or, you can try this, right on the www, if you have the time.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by David '47

I lived in the Tidewater region of Virginia for 20 years. During that time, they talked endlessly about desalinization. They passed on the idea for one reason only: $$$$$$$. Desalinization is ~10+ times as expensive as the final option they chose: ten years of litigation culminating in a 100 mile long pipeline to a nearby lake.

David, do you recall from this episode specifically where this allegedly exorbitant cost lies? I just do not see it. With corporate-government corruption, I can certainly see exorbitant costs surrounding contracts for construction and transport, etc., priced exponentially higher than they should be. Get rid of the graft and I cannot see what would be so expensive. It makes no sense. We are talking about H2O and heating steam which recycles itself, thus minimizing fuel consumption. If done at an already existing power plant which produces heat, we are only talking about H2O. That's it! What on earth could be so expensive?

Sorry about being so late in responding, but I forgot I wrote the comment, and missed your response.

From what I've read, there are three problems:

• Capital cost is high. A typical plant costs $100M+. Note: these are not simple distilleries
• Incremental cost is also high. Nevada was considering a trade with California: Nevada gets water from the Colorado and pays for a desalilnization plant on the coast. Estimated cost of $2000 per acre foot of water made it too high to consider. Note: almost all incremental costs are energy related. The laws of thermodynamics make reclaiming that energy a limited possibility at best.
• Maintenance is both costly and a pain in the a**. The technology generates some pretty nasty stuff, in small quantities, surely, but nasty nonetheless. On the other hand, salt is generated in the tons. The nasties are dangerous and the salt corrosive.

But there's hope. DARPA is funding a new process. Currently, water is extracted from salt by reverse osmosis. The new DARPA-funded method uses nanotechnology in the form of a flow through capacitor. And no, I don't know anything more about this than what I've posted.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by David '47

I lived in the Tidewater region of Virginia for 20 years. During that time, they talked endlessly about desalinization. They passed on the idea for one reason only: $$$$$$$. Desalinization is ~10+ times as expensive as the final option they chose: ten years of litigation culminating in a 100 mile long pipeline to a nearby lake.

David, do you recall from this episode specifically where this allegedly exorbitant cost lies? I just do not see it. With corporate-government corruption, I can certainly see exorbitant costs surrounding contracts for construction and transport, etc., priced exponentially higher than they should be. Get rid of the graft and I cannot see what would be so expensive. It makes no sense. We are talking about H2O and heating steam which recycles itself, thus minimizing fuel consumption. If done at an already existing power plant which produces heat, we are only talking about H2O. That's it! What on earth could be so expensive?

Sorry about being so late in responding, but I forgot I wrote the comment, and missed your response.

From what I've read, there are three problems:

• Capital cost is high. A typical plant costs $100M+. Note: these are not simple distilleries
• Incremental cost is also high. Nevada was considering a trade with California: Nevada gets water from the Colorado and pays for a desalilnization plant on the coast. Estimated cost of $2000 per acre foot of water made it too high to consider. Note: almost all incremental costs are energy related. The laws of thermodynamics make reclaiming that energy a limited possibility at best.
• Maintenance is both costly and a pain in the a**. The technology generates some pretty nasty stuff, in small quantities, surely, but nasty nonetheless. On the other hand, salt is generated in the tons. The nasties are dangerous and the salt corrosive.

But there's hope. DARPA is funding a new process. Currently, water is extracted from salt by reverse osmosis. The new DARPA-funded method uses nanotechnology in the form of a flow through capacitor. And no, I don't know anything more about this than what I've posted.

Originally Posted by David '47

From what I've read, there are three problems:

• Capital cost is high. A typical plant costs $100M+. Note: these are not simple distilleries
• Incremental cost is also high. Nevada was considering a trade with California: Nevada gets water from the Colorado and pays for a desalilnization plant on the coast. Estimated cost of $2000 per acre foot of water made it too high to consider. Note: almost all incremental costs are energy related. The laws of thermodynamics make reclaiming that energy a limited possibility at best.
• Maintenance is both costly and a pain in the a**. The technology generates some pretty nasty stuff, in small quantities, surely, but nasty nonetheless. On the other hand, salt is generated in the tons. The nasties are dangerous and the salt corrosive.

But there's hope. DARPA is funding a new process. Currently, water is extracted from salt by reverse osmosis. The new DARPA-funded method uses nanotechnology in the form of a flow through capacitor. And no, I don't know anything more about this than what I've posted.

I looked this stuff up on the weekend and I got the impression that the process is a piece of cake when done at a nuclear plant. In fact, it is currently being done at a number of nuclear plants around the world. But this introduces a whole new set of political problems....

From what I have read, the real remaining cost hurdle lies with disposal of the brine produced. However I have yet to find many specifics. From what I have found, it appears to be a matter of environmentalists being concerned about altering salinity levels in brackish (and necessarily tidal) water. This seems positively absurd.

Originally Posted by David '47

From what I've read, there are three problems:

• Capital cost is high. A typical plant costs $100M+. Note: these are not simple distilleries
• Incremental cost is also high. Nevada was considering a trade with California: Nevada gets water from the Colorado and pays for a desalilnization plant on the coast. Estimated cost of $2000 per acre foot of water made it too high to consider. Note: almost all incremental costs are energy related. The laws of thermodynamics make reclaiming that energy a limited possibility at best.
• Maintenance is both costly and a pain in the a**. The technology generates some pretty nasty stuff, in small quantities, surely, but nasty nonetheless. On the other hand, salt is generated in the tons. The nasties are dangerous and the salt corrosive.

But there's hope. DARPA is funding a new process. Currently, water is extracted from salt by reverse osmosis. The new DARPA-funded method uses nanotechnology in the form of a flow through capacitor. And no, I don't know anything more about this than what I've posted.

I looked this stuff up on the weekend and I got the impression that the process is a piece of cake when done at a nuclear plant. In fact, it is currently being done at a number of nuclear plants around the world. But this introduces a whole new set of political problems....

From what I have read, the real remaining cost hurdle lies with disposal of the brine produced. However I have yet to find many specifics. From what I have found, it appears to be a matter of environmentalists being concerned about altering salinity levels in brackish (and necessarily tidal) water. This seems positively absurd.

Suz X:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...678271-9232838

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...678271-9232838

As you note, this is a highly politicized subject. On the anti-green side, here are some things to watch out for:

There are a number of anti-environmental advocacy groups with green-sounding names, funded by the oil industry. If a group has a web page, its founding members can usually be identified.

There are several scientists who are notorious for working in the pay of these groups or of the oil companies directly. You'll see their names pop up repeatedly.

I would also suggest avoiding anything by the late Julian Simon, except for entertainment purposes. While he was witty, eloquent, and often amusing, Simon was also given to saying things like that the earth's population could continue growing at today's exponential rate for the next million years. A simple calculation shows that if it did so, the biomass of humanity would exceed the total mass of the solar system. Obviously that's not possible.

On the green side, there is less deliberate falsification, but more romantic self-deception. This is more true in some groups than in others; for example the Union of Concerned Scientists is better grounded than Greenpeace or Earth First!, although I have caught them in misstatements, too.

Science on this issue should only be trusted completely if it is from a peer-reviewed publication, such as Nature, Science, or specialized scientific journals on the subjects of ecology, atmospheric science, biology, etc. The green side tends to do better than the anti-green side but should also be verified, not trusted completely.

Suz X:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...678271-9232838

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...678271-9232838

As you note, this is a highly politicized subject. On the anti-green side, here are some things to watch out for:

There are a number of anti-environmental advocacy groups with green-sounding names, funded by the oil industry. If a group has a web page, its founding members can usually be identified.

There are several scientists who are notorious for working in the pay of these groups or of the oil companies directly. You'll see their names pop up repeatedly.

I would also suggest avoiding anything by the late Julian Simon, except for entertainment purposes. While he was witty, eloquent, and often amusing, Simon was also given to saying things like that the earth's population could continue growing at today's exponential rate for the next million years. A simple calculation shows that if it did so, the biomass of humanity would exceed the total mass of the solar system. Obviously that's not possible.

On the green side, there is less deliberate falsification, but more romantic self-deception. This is more true in some groups than in others; for example the Union of Concerned Scientists is better grounded than Greenpeace or Earth First!, although I have caught them in misstatements, too.

Science on this issue should only be trusted completely if it is from a peer-reviewed publication, such as Nature, Science, or specialized scientific journals on the subjects of ecology, atmospheric science, biology, etc. The green side tends to do better than the anti-green side but should also be verified, not trusted completely.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I would also suggest avoiding anything by the late Julian Simon, except for entertainment purposes. While he was witty, eloquent, and often amusing, Simon was also given to saying things like that the earth's population could continue growing at today's exponential rate for the next million years. A simple calculation shows that if it did so, the biomass of humanity would exceed the total mass of the solar system. Obviously that's not possible.

Hmmm, Simon is witty and funny, but you don't know a good joke when you hear one. But then again, I mentioned how wrong Mr. "Population Explosion" himself, Paul Erlich, was and you about had a cow. So it is only stands to reason that you don't "get it" with Simon.

I would also suggest avioding anything posted or recommended the our local fear and crisismonger, Mr. Rush, except if you're in the mood for a headache. He has a way of depressing thought, in the name of Science. :wink:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I would also suggest avoiding anything by the late Julian Simon, except for entertainment purposes. While he was witty, eloquent, and often amusing, Simon was also given to saying things like that the earth's population could continue growing at today's exponential rate for the next million years. A simple calculation shows that if it did so, the biomass of humanity would exceed the total mass of the solar system. Obviously that's not possible.

Hmmm, Simon is witty and funny, but you don't know a good joke when you hear one. But then again, I mentioned how wrong Mr. "Population Explosion" himself, Paul Erlich, was and you about had a cow. So it is only stands to reason that you don't "get it" with Simon.

I would also suggest avioding anything posted or recommended the our local fear and crisismonger, Mr. Rush, except if you're in the mood for a headache. He has a way of depressing thought, in the name of Science. :wink:

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by David '47

From what I've read, there are three problems:

• Capital cost is high. A typical plant costs $100M+. Note: these are not simple distilleries
• Incremental cost is also high. Nevada was considering a trade with California: Nevada gets water from the Colorado and pays for a desalilnization plant on the coast. Estimated cost of $2000 per acre foot of water made it too high to consider. Note: almost all incremental costs are energy related. The laws of thermodynamics make reclaiming that energy a limited possibility at best.
• Maintenance is both costly and a pain in the a**. The technology generates some pretty nasty stuff, in small quantities, surely, but nasty nonetheless. On the other hand, salt is generated in the tons. The nasties are dangerous and the salt corrosive.

But there's hope. DARPA is funding a new process. Currently, water is extracted from salt by reverse osmosis. The new DARPA-funded method uses nanotechnology in the form of a flow through capacitor. And no, I don't know anything more about this than what I've posted.

I looked this stuff up on the weekend and I got the impression that the process is a piece of cake when done at a nuclear plant. In fact, it is currently being done at a number of nuclear plants around the world. But this introduces a whole new set of political problems....

From what I have read, the real remaining cost hurdle lies with disposal of the brine produced. However I have yet to find many specifics. From what I have found, it appears to be a matter of environmentalists being concerned about altering salinity levels in brackish (and necessarily tidal) water. This seems positively absurd.

I remember hearing the technocrats argue about disposing of the salt, and that is not the problem. You can pump the stuff off-shore through a submerged pipeline, using seawater as a solvent. The super-salted water would then be subsumed by the ocean.

No, the real problems are the secondary chemicals, that tend to react in unexpected ways, and energy cost to run the process - assuming you can afford the plant in the first place. At present, the only entities that can justify the cost are rich and arid countries, Saudi Arabia for example, or special needs groups like the military.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by David '47

From what I've read, there are three problems:

• Capital cost is high. A typical plant costs $100M+. Note: these are not simple distilleries
• Incremental cost is also high. Nevada was considering a trade with California: Nevada gets water from the Colorado and pays for a desalilnization plant on the coast. Estimated cost of $2000 per acre foot of water made it too high to consider. Note: almost all incremental costs are energy related. The laws of thermodynamics make reclaiming that energy a limited possibility at best.
• Maintenance is both costly and a pain in the a**. The technology generates some pretty nasty stuff, in small quantities, surely, but nasty nonetheless. On the other hand, salt is generated in the tons. The nasties are dangerous and the salt corrosive.

But there's hope. DARPA is funding a new process. Currently, water is extracted from salt by reverse osmosis. The new DARPA-funded method uses nanotechnology in the form of a flow through capacitor. And no, I don't know anything more about this than what I've posted.

I looked this stuff up on the weekend and I got the impression that the process is a piece of cake when done at a nuclear plant. In fact, it is currently being done at a number of nuclear plants around the world. But this introduces a whole new set of political problems....

From what I have read, the real remaining cost hurdle lies with disposal of the brine produced. However I have yet to find many specifics. From what I have found, it appears to be a matter of environmentalists being concerned about altering salinity levels in brackish (and necessarily tidal) water. This seems positively absurd.

I remember hearing the technocrats argue about disposing of the salt, and that is not the problem. You can pump the stuff off-shore through a submerged pipeline, using seawater as a solvent. The super-salted water would then be subsumed by the ocean.

No, the real problems are the secondary chemicals, that tend to react in unexpected ways, and energy cost to run the process - assuming you can afford the plant in the first place. At present, the only entities that can justify the cost are rich and arid countries, Saudi Arabia for example, or special needs groups like the military.

Just got this in the office e-distribution. :o

PRELIMINARY ANTHRAX FINDINGS AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE

January 15, 2003

Routine, random anthrax testing at the Federal Reserve resulted in a preliminary positive outcome today. This was a field test conducted by the US Post Office and the results will not be confirmed until tomorrow, January 16, 2003.

As a result, the USPS will be conducting further anthrax testing at their V Street Mail Distribution Facility. This facility has been closed today and will continue to be closed until test results are confirmed hopefully on January 16, 2003. The USDA Mail Center located at the South Building will not be receiving any outside mail from the USPS today and will process only in-house mail.
All mail address to FNS Headquarters is processed through the Merrifield Processing Plant in Merrifield, Virginia. The FNS courier will continue to transport in-house government mail during the testing period.

Please be reminded that mail for all Federal agencies is still being irradiated and should be considered safe. Rubber gloves and masks are available in all of our work areas. We will continue to update you as pertinent information is received from the Department, as your safety is our utmost concern.

Floyd A. Wheeler

Homeland Security Coordinator

I wonder if our secretaries will go back to wearing latex gloves when they open the mail? And I was just patting myself on the back for having a nice secure Federal Government job during these days of uncertain economic news. Sigh. :o

Just got this in the office e-distribution. :o

PRELIMINARY ANTHRAX FINDINGS AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE

January 15, 2003

Routine, random anthrax testing at the Federal Reserve resulted in a preliminary positive outcome today. This was a field test conducted by the US Post Office and the results will not be confirmed until tomorrow, January 16, 2003.

As a result, the USPS will be conducting further anthrax testing at their V Street Mail Distribution Facility. This facility has been closed today and will continue to be closed until test results are confirmed hopefully on January 16, 2003. The USDA Mail Center located at the South Building will not be receiving any outside mail from the USPS today and will process only in-house mail.
All mail address to FNS Headquarters is processed through the Merrifield Processing Plant in Merrifield, Virginia. The FNS courier will continue to transport in-house government mail during the testing period.

Please be reminded that mail for all Federal agencies is still being irradiated and should be considered safe. Rubber gloves and masks are available in all of our work areas. We will continue to update you as pertinent information is received from the Department, as your safety is our utmost concern.

Floyd A. Wheeler

Homeland Security Coordinator

I wonder if our secretaries will go back to wearing latex gloves when they open the mail? And I was just patting myself on the back for having a nice secure Federal Government job during these days of uncertain economic news. Sigh. :o

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Science on this issue should only be trusted completely if it is from a peer-reviewed publication, such as Nature, Science, or specialized scientific journals on the subjects of ecology, atmospheric science, biology, etc. The green side tends to do better than the anti-green side but should also be verified, not trusted completely.

dammit, brian, this is exactly the kind of reasonable thought that will make this place as fun as a funeral. no hyperbole, no personal attacks, no obfuscation.... have you learned nothing?


TK

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Science on this issue should only be trusted completely if it is from a peer-reviewed publication, such as Nature, Science, or specialized scientific journals on the subjects of ecology, atmospheric science, biology, etc. The green side tends to do better than the anti-green side but should also be verified, not trusted completely.

dammit, brian, this is exactly the kind of reasonable thought that will make this place as fun as a funeral. no hyperbole, no personal attacks, no obfuscation.... have you learned nothing?


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Science on this issue should only be trusted completely if it is from a peer-reviewed publication, such as Nature, Science, or specialized scientific journals...

dammit, brian, this is exactly the kind of reasonable thought that will make this place as fun as a funeral. no hyperbole, no personal attacks, no obfuscation.... have you learned nothing? TK

Paul Erlich was "peer-reviewed" up one side and down the other. And ridiculously wrong.

And what's this "no hyperbole, no personal attacks, no obfuscation" bs? Rush had just done a hatchet job on the late Julian Simon.

You just clowning around, again, TrollKing, or what? :wink:

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Science on this issue should only be trusted completely if it is from a peer-reviewed publication, such as Nature, Science, or specialized scientific journals...

dammit, brian, this is exactly the kind of reasonable thought that will make this place as fun as a funeral. no hyperbole, no personal attacks, no obfuscation.... have you learned nothing? TK

Paul Erlich was "peer-reviewed" up one side and down the other. And ridiculously wrong.

And what's this "no hyperbole, no personal attacks, no obfuscation" bs? Rush had just done a hatchet job on the late Julian Simon.

You just clowning around, again, TrollKing, or what? :wink:

To My Learned Professors of Ecology:
Thanks all around for the syllibi. I've got a free day tomorrow and I'll look at everything you recommended, to the extent I can via internet. I'm about a quarter way through The Diversity of Life. I'm finding it a bit dull, to tell the truth. I just can't seem to catch the author's enthusiasm for polyploidy, taxon cycles or allometry. But I'm a fast reader, I'm learning, and that was my intent. (Why are physics and philosophy so much more interesting than biology? Probably because of genetics. :wink: )
Your diligent little schoolgirl,
--Suz X
(but I am no way going to wear knee socks and saddle shoes, so forget it!")

To My Learned Professors of Ecology:
Thanks all around for the syllibi. I've got a free day tomorrow and I'll look at everything you recommended, to the extent I can via internet. I'm about a quarter way through The Diversity of Life. I'm finding it a bit dull, to tell the truth. I just can't seem to catch the author's enthusiasm for polyploidy, taxon cycles or allometry. But I'm a fast reader, I'm learning, and that was my intent. (Why are physics and philosophy so much more interesting than biology? Probably because of genetics. :wink: )
Your diligent little schoolgirl,
--Suz X
(but I am no way going to wear knee socks and saddle shoes, so forget it!")

Originally Posted by Suz X

I went to B&N this afternoon in search of study material to take your advice and set that right. What I discovered is that environmental information sans politics is in short supply. Nearly everything published is either an indictment of civilization or an indictment of environmentalism. The shelves fairly vibrate with hostility; these books would commit browse-by shootings upon one another if they could.

Look, it's no more complicated than chasin' money. And, wherein science goes (since the New Deal), the money trail leads to the federal government: the "big tit," if you will. It is really no more complicated than that.

At one time, we trusted this arrangement of government and science. They came up with a cure for polio, remember? But then, they came up with agent orange, too. And the "silent spring," and on an on it went. No good, we said. The government sucks. But, the government still has your BIG BUCKS! And the power. So it's a matter of who sucks more, huh? :wink:

I know, that sounds trite and all, but the very essence of the debate, on environmentalism, has come down to money, since the seventies, and where to get it. And the "truth" can go straight to hell.

Sorry. :wink:

Originally Posted by Suz X

I went to B&N this afternoon in search of study material to take your advice and set that right. What I discovered is that environmental information sans politics is in short supply. Nearly everything published is either an indictment of civilization or an indictment of environmentalism. The shelves fairly vibrate with hostility; these books would commit browse-by shootings upon one another if they could.

Look, it's no more complicated than chasin' money. And, wherein science goes (since the New Deal), the money trail leads to the federal government: the "big tit," if you will. It is really no more complicated than that.

At one time, we trusted this arrangement of government and science. They came up with a cure for polio, remember? But then, they came up with agent orange, too. And the "silent spring," and on an on it went. No good, we said. The government sucks. But, the government still has your BIG BUCKS! And the power. So it's a matter of who sucks more, huh? :wink:

I know, that sounds trite and all, but the very essence of the debate, on environmentalism, has come down to money, since the seventies, and where to get it. And the "truth" can go straight to hell.

Sorry. :wink:

I mentioned peer review earlier, and it might be worthwhile to clarify exactly what that is and why it's important.

Peer review is something that happens in the context of reputable scientific journals. It's a recognition that scientists are human, and that they both make mistakes and suffer from irrational biases.

When an article is submitted to a scientific journal such as Nature, the editors circulate it among scientists in the field the article pertains to. They are not seeking agreement or disagreement but rather evaluation of the methodology. Based on this review, the editors will then either publish the piece, reject it, or return it to the author for suggested revisions.

This is the scientific community's internal cure for money-induced biases. The same scientists who publish junk science pooh-pooing global warming at the behest of the oil companies could, for example, submit their research findings to a peer-reviewed publication and, if they passed the review, gain for them a much greater level of respect. They do not do this, however; for whatever reason, one does not find this sort of argument in genuine scientific journals, but only in tracts and web sites made available for public consumption. One does not find the same degree of lying in the green non-peer-reviewed material, but one does find increased sloppiness compared to genuine science.

All such journals are private nonprofit corporations and are not subsidized either by governments or by for-profit corporations. They, themselves, are motivated only by a commitment to science. This is fortunate, because the argument one sometimes sees, that government funding inherently corrupts scientific integrity, is an argument to reject all of science and live in stubborn ignorance. Luckily, science's internal policing still works, and such drastic steps are not necessary.

I mentioned peer review earlier, and it might be worthwhile to clarify exactly what that is and why it's important.

Peer review is something that happens in the context of reputable scientific journals. It's a recognition that scientists are human, and that they both make mistakes and suffer from irrational biases.

When an article is submitted to a scientific journal such as Nature, the editors circulate it among scientists in the field the article pertains to. They are not seeking agreement or disagreement but rather evaluation of the methodology. Based on this review, the editors will then either publish the piece, reject it, or return it to the author for suggested revisions.

This is the scientific community's internal cure for money-induced biases. The same scientists who publish junk science pooh-pooing global warming at the behest of the oil companies could, for example, submit their research findings to a peer-reviewed publication and, if they passed the review, gain for them a much greater level of respect. They do not do this, however; for whatever reason, one does not find this sort of argument in genuine scientific journals, but only in tracts and web sites made available for public consumption. One does not find the same degree of lying in the green non-peer-reviewed material, but one does find increased sloppiness compared to genuine science.

All such journals are private nonprofit corporations and are not subsidized either by governments or by for-profit corporations. They, themselves, are motivated only by a commitment to science. This is fortunate, because the argument one sometimes sees, that government funding inherently corrupts scientific integrity, is an argument to reject all of science and live in stubborn ignorance. Luckily, science's internal policing still works, and such drastic steps are not necessary.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

At one time, we trusted this arrangement of government and science. They came up with a cure for polio, remember? But then, they came up with agent orange, too.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

All such journals are private nonprofit corporations and are not subsidized either by governments or by for-profit corporations. They, themselves, are motivated only by a commitment to science. This is fortunate, because the argument one sometimes sees, that government funding inherently corrupts scientific integrity, is an argument to reject all of science and live in stubborn ignorance.

Quite the conundrum, eh, Mr. Rush? This who do you trust factor?

Obviously, this is the very sole reason why you await the demise of private enterprize. Like "teeth set on edge," you await that moment of sour grapes, wherein you may pounce upon the benighted, the ignorant, the weak, the uneducated, with your utopian nightmare.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

At one time, we trusted this arrangement of government and science. They came up with a cure for polio, remember? But then, they came up with agent orange, too.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

All such journals are private nonprofit corporations and are not subsidized either by governments or by for-profit corporations. They, themselves, are motivated only by a commitment to science. This is fortunate, because the argument one sometimes sees, that government funding inherently corrupts scientific integrity, is an argument to reject all of science and live in stubborn ignorance.

Quite the conundrum, eh, Mr. Rush? This who do you trust factor?

Obviously, this is the very sole reason why you await the demise of private enterprize. Like "teeth set on edge," you await that moment of sour grapes, wherein you may pounce upon the benighted, the ignorant, the weak, the uneducated, with your utopian nightmare.