Slashdot Mirror

There are three superfund sites listed for the city in the including a former airforce base, groundwater contamination, and one site with no details "at State request". Active military facilities are exempted from EPA oversight. But, of course, fences and guards only work above ground to keep people out, not below ground to keep Tetrachloroethanen in.

There are three superfund sites listed for the city in the including a former airforce base, groundwater contamination, and one site with no details "at State request". Active military facilities are exempted from EPA oversight. But, of course, fences and guards only work above ground to keep people out, not below ground to keep Tetrachloroethanen in.

about this:

while the plan has it's merits, it is an irresponsible step towards reversing years of progress made in encouraging people to buy less polluting, more efficient vehicles.

Sure, pollution in the form of COx and its friends is down across the board. But more efficient vehicles? Check out page ii of this pdf, and note that the total economy of light vehicles (cars, SUVs, pickups) is less than 1980!

The fact is, we aren't any more efficient than we were coming off of the gas crisis of the late 1970s. Blame every congress and president since 1985ish for that one... neither the pubs nor the dems had the foresight (read: testicular fortitude) to raise gas taxes or to increase CAFE standards enough to induce consumers and producers to figure out how to get more miles to the gallon.

Shame on them, and shame on us for not demanding better.

However, the tax rate hasn't changed since 1991, and the more fuel-efficient cars on the highways are sucking down far less fuel.

Furthermore, removing the gas tax will lower the price of gas, which will encourage more consumption. Which means more trucks and further reductions in average efficiency of vehicles purchased each year. Trucks are heavier, and create more wear per mile driven on the roads when compared to lighter, more fuel-efficient cars.

Why would you create an incentive for people to drive more in heavier vehicles if you are having problems keeping roads repaired? It just makes no sense.

>Environmental Protection. The phrase "The fox guarding the Henhouse" applies to any private company. And I doubt that people who want less government would want the Sierra Club providing this function.

We'd be better with neither. The EPA lies through it's teeth, despite court orders not to. The Sierra Club does whatever the hell it likes regardless of laws (stupid or not).

I say let the people decide for themselves what level of "environmental protection" is right for them. They could either democratically vote to hire a company to support their views (locally, of course) or, better yet, simply speak with their wallets.

>Fire and Emergency Services. I can see "Sorry, your insurance doesn't cover this type of emergency - what is your credit card number". Yes, I know some ambulances are run by private companies.

And all Doctors take the hippocratic oath. You'll be "saved" despite having no funds. However, if you want quality, speedy healthcare, better than what we (in my province, for example) have now, you _should_ have to pay. It only makes sense, and it gives people just one more reason not to sit on their duffs jobless.

>Tax Collection. Sorry, can't trust non-government entities.

I'd have said the opposite. :) Take the GST, for example. A Canadian tax with collection procedures so complicated, some question wether it actually gathers enough to pay for it's own administration (it does, but it doesn't leave a whole lot left). However, minus the cost to business (passed on to consumers) this tax costs much more than it brings in.

And then there's the dreaded audits... Help!

The fact is that if we were to completely privatize everything reasonbly possible, taxes would be so low I doubt there'd be enough to collect to make it interesting to defraud.

>It's always easier to cut a few corners to do a crappy job.

And, at the same time, you can spend more and get the other half of the customers.

That's why both wal-mart and Saks 5th Avenue sell clothes. They're both the same end product, just one of the companies doesn't cut corners. Both of them operate just fine, and give consumers a choice.

Perhaps I _want_ to cut certain corners? Maybe a gravel road to my house would suit me just fine rather than a paved one? Maybe I live so far away from a city that having the same level of police protection is wasteful? Perhaps I want more telecommunications service than a 14.4 kbps maximum phone line? I wish I could make that decision rather than a government office miles removed.

>And most non-profit organizations aren't any better - would you want the Jehovah's Witnesses in charge of building permits?

Actually, I'd advocate no building permits. If you own land, you should be allowed to do anything you like with it, as long as you don't endanger lives or harm the property of others (and perhaps a handful of other things).

Zoning regulations (and building permits) are horrible, and, in fact, increased the cost of leasing for my company by 60% because the location we wanted was zoned for Convenience stores only (not computer stores) and we had to find accomodation elsewhere, at an inflated price (which we certainly will pass on to customers, I'm not a charity. ;-)

Hey, just my 2 cents!

• OBDII

• OBDIII

"The European Environment Agency (EEA) estimates they were 1% greater than in 2000"

But how much would they have increased if they had not signed the Kyoto treaty?

Its interesting to compare US trends from the EPA which claims for 2001 "Emissions declined for the first time since the base year 1990".

Available scientific evidence shows that at concentrations that do not exceed public health standards, ozone has little potential to remove indoor air contaminants.

Yeah. . .they do. Whale oil was used for lamps, soap and other items. Reading is good for you

The fine particals are the main problem with diesel engines.

Kyoto was meant to do two things:
1) Hurt the US economically compared to Europe, by hitting us harder

2) Provide a start to a process that would have required drastic cuts in CO2 emissions - cuts that would have been politically impossible if called for in the first treaty, but cuts that would be necessary to achieve Kyoto's goals.

The ultimate conceit in Kyoto was its assumption that its CO2 emissions rules could be maintained, world wide, for 100 years. That requires an absurd faith in the stability of international life that is unprecedented in history.

That's nice and all, but it would be nice if they massively improved access to the Federal Register. As an environmental engineer dealing with air quality issues, I have to look up regs all the time for changes, so I can atest it is terribly slow. So slow, EPA took all the effort to put the environmental portion of the Federal Register on their own website.

They "transport it to an EPA approved recycler" like it says. Of course the real question is what to they do with it, which is covered here in a story aptly title Exporting Harm.

A president can not be "ousted" period. There are no recall procedures for federal offices.

A president, or any other official, can be ousted thru a revolt. It has happened all throughout history, and I suspect it will happen at some point in the USA's future...though I don't expect that that time is now.

The vast majority of people agree with President Bush. Period.

The vast majority (about 70%) of Americans agree that war is necessary to remove Hussein. Fewer than half of Americans are strongly convinced that Bush's policies are correct, however.

Of course, the flip side is that over half of Americans believe that this will increase terrorism in the short term, and almost half think that it will increase terrorism in the long term as well.

International polls aren't nearly as favorable towards Bush or the USA.

All this FUD about most disagreeing with him is just that, FUD. He has enjoyed the highest approval ratings in history. Higher than FDR. (read your history).

His approval ratings were highest immediately after September 11. They've been declining since. Lately, they've dipped down to Clinton numbers. And approval of things other than the war on terrorism have been less than stellar.

Anwr? Yes, we should drill there. Look at the results of drilling in other areas of Alaska. So far, the most damage it has done is to create a population explosion of carabu [sic].

I suppose that depends on whether or not you think oil rigs and pipelines are a scenic addition. Oh, and don't forget the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

I still don't agree with [Bush] all the time, but I respect him and believe he is doing what he feels is the morally correct thing to do.

I believe Bush is doing what he feels is morally correct as well. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I share his morals or his view of world politics.

But other than those two extremes, NJ is a fucking great place to live. Pretty much everything outside of those two uber densely populated areas is greener than green.

Some of it even glows green.

New Jersey, the 5th smallest state, has more superfund sites than any other. That's why people make fun of it, not just because of Camden.

In my teenage years I often worked with my father during the summer. He was a private contractor, did everything from building houses to putting on siding.

A lot of what I have seen of "bad house syndrome" was caused by either human error or nature.

One woman had asthma problems every year around the same time (early spring). She said it was the heat baking some chemical out of her roof (or something). A look into her heating and air system showed a lot of built up dust. So, it could have been a mold or mildew that went crazy around that time of year. Cleaned the air system and the danker sections of the house - her problem disappeared.

Another house had problems with a child being sick, especially after he had been in the basement. It turned out that the supports down there were full of termites. Apparently the kid was allergic to something produced by the termites.

Then there is human error. One new house (not Dad's work, he was called in) had a distinct chemical smell. During the construction somebody had spilled something and it had soaked into the subfloor.

Honestly, a house with the correct setup does circulate the air pretty well. Plus, while building material may give off fumes for years, how much exactly are we talking about? Even in nature we are constantly subjected to small amounts of all sorts of things. The key is amount. Here is some information about formaldehyde from the EPA: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html. In fact, check out their whole section about indoor air quality.

No it isn't. Natural gas is found with all oil deposits, and in many cases it's just burnt because there it's just not economic to bring it to where it's used. Secondly, methane can be formed from oil through cracking. Again it's not, because it's not economic to do so. Thirdly methane is found whenever something is decomposing, so if you have a capped landfill, you have to have handle the methane, and this is sometimes used for fuel, eg this program. We will never run out of methane.

1a) Granted.
1b) When have "we" bombed a country for building a nuclear power plant?

2) Digging coal out of the ground is not gentle either. Even a small facility like Plant Wansley requires two train loads of coal per day. As a student at Georgia Tech I visited Wansley as part of my power & distribution class.

3) I thought "we" did!

Power generating companies are already giving all kinds of credits for reducing use-- not because of nuclear energy, but because NO new generation facilities have been built anywhere in ages. Since "we" haven't allowed new generation facilities of any kind to be built, there has been increasing pressure on existing facilities as demand has increased. Why do you think your utility company keeps pressuring you, even offering cash, to dump that old AC unit for a new 14+ SEER heat pump?

I still maintain that nuclear is the most efficient power technology on a energy-per-pound-of-fuel scale available today, and the problems you mention are not insurmountable as long as "we" refrain from spreading FUD.

You are correct in that the hole in the ozone layer has stabilized much faster than atmospheric scientists were expecting. But it is a logical fallacy to go from "with CFC reductions the hole shrinks faster than expected" to "therefore with more CFC's the hole will grower slower than expected". Indeed, this is directly contradicted by the evidence, where until 1987 the hole was growing very fast indeed. Have a look at this table if you want some real data. Especially, look at the change from 1985 (when the international effort to ban CFC's started to get underway), through 1997 (Montreal Protocol) to the turning point in the early 1990's. Especially have a look at the corresponding graph. If it had continued depleting at the same rate there would be practically no ozone left by today! Without a doubt, a major disaster was averted. Even today, the ozone levels are hovering around the all-time minimum.

I have been directly affected by this. I used to live in Tasmania, which was (and is still) affected greatly. Even on a cloudy day in Tasmania it is easy to get sunburn. I really noticed the difference when I moved to Europe, that I do not need to be nearly as careful about sunburn (some of this, but not all, is due to pollutants in the air in the Northern hemisphere - mostly sulphur dioxide, that block UV).

I am a professional scientist, although this is not my field (I am a condensed-matter physicist). So I think I do know what I am talking about - or rather, I think I can differentiate between what I have seen evidence for versus what I have a hunch about. So please do not accuse me of "Chicken Little" science, whatever that is supposed to mean!

You are correct in that the hole in the ozone layer has stabilized much faster than atmospheric scientists were expecting. But it is a logical fallacy to go from "with CFC reductions the hole shrinks faster than expected" to "therefore with more CFC's the hole will grower slower than expected". Indeed, this is directly contradicted by the evidence, where until 1987 the hole was growing very fast indeed. Have a look at this table if you want some real data. Especially, look at the change from 1985 (when the international effort to ban CFC's started to get underway), through 1997 (Montreal Protocol) to the turning point in the early 1990's. Especially have a look at the corresponding graph. If it had continued depleting at the same rate there would be practically no ozone left by today! Without a doubt, a major disaster was averted. Even today, the ozone levels are hovering around the all-time minimum.

I have been directly affected by this. I used to live in Tasmania, which was (and is still) affected greatly. Even on a cloudy day in Tasmania it is easy to get sunburn. I really noticed the difference when I moved to Europe, that I do not need to be nearly as careful about sunburn (some of this, but not all, is due to pollutants in the air in the Northern hemisphere - mostly sulphur dioxide, that block UV).

I am a professional scientist, although this is not my field (I am a condensed-matter physicist). So I think I do know what I am talking about - or rather, I think I can differentiate between what I have seen evidence for versus what I have a hunch about. So please do not accuse me of "Chicken Little" science, whatever that is supposed to mean!

Smog is primarily, "ground-level ozone". How many PPM are needed for this pesticide solution? How many PPM constitutes a smog concentration? How will it "rapidly dissipate" as per the original article? Especially in a valley dedicated to farming?

...but isn't Oak Ridge also infamous as a contaminated site? Any truth to all that? A Google search reveals a war of the cites.

I know similar questions were raised about the Rocky Flats Plant (renamed "Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site" in an Orwellian twist) in Golden, CO (of Coors fame?).

(Another leaky drum example, in northwest DC a few miles from here, they have to be careful when excavation of drums of chemical warfare materials that were misplaced 70 years ago. One wonders how these things happen in the first place.)

Here is a Dec. 2002 DOE press release re cleanup near Y-12. Cleanup is part of the price of nuclear programs, military or civilian.

"The electronic comments you submit directly through the Regulations.gov website are temporarily maintained by EPA before being forwarded once per day to the proper agency. The agency receiving your comment is considered the official custodian of the comment. Your comment will not be considered until it has been properly received by that agency in accordance with the requirements described in the Federal Register notice. Users who want to verify that an agency has received their comment are urged to check directly with that agency."

All the car manufacturers are showing off green vehicle projects, but thats all they are, projects.

OTOH, I am pleased that Toyota and Honda continue to actually manufacture and ship the greenest vehicles we can buy (Toyota Prius, Toyota RAV4 EV, Honda Civic Hybrid, Honda Insight).

Unfortunately, all the green vehicles in the world won't do a bit of good if nobody buys them. Actual average fuel economy of all cars bought in the U.S. is currently as low as it was in 1980. To turn this around we either have to mandate better economy by raising the CAFE standards, or push it economically by raising the cost of gasoline with taxes, and then offset them by giving tax breaks to people who buy more fuel-efficient, less-polluting vehicles.

All the car manufacturers are showing off green vehicle projects, but thats all they are, projects.

OTOH, I am pleased that Toyota and Honda continue to actually manufacture and ship the greenest vehicles we can buy (Toyota Prius, Toyota RAV4 EV, Honda Civic Hybrid, Honda Insight).

Unfortunately, all the green vehicles in the world won't do a bit of good if nobody buys them. Actual average fuel economy of all cars bought in the U.S. is currently as low as it was in 1980. To turn this around we either have to mandate better economy by raising the CAFE standards, or push it economically by raising the cost of gasoline with taxes, and then offset them by giving tax breaks to people who buy more fuel-efficient, less-polluting vehicles.

Here's another example of a cleanup site, the Coalinga Mine Superfund Site, at the EPA site , an area that is, fortunately, much more sparsely populated than Libby, MT. It's interesting to note that major aspects of the cleanup were to tear the buildings down then bury all the debris, divert a stream away from the tailings pile, and put up a fence.... I'm sure there are much worse sites but it sure sounds like "file it and forget about it" to me. Let's get some fungi in there to actually chemically break down some of that asbestos.

Well, you haven't really said anything here about Bush, just about yourself... But then, the "Bush sucks" posts don't say anything about why he sucks, so most of those are equally invalid.
No, what's more interesting is the stuff about how Bush went AWOL during a war for over a year - potentially an act of treason, how Cheney's accounting scandals have been swept under the rug, etc. Refute those, and we can start discussing Bush's suck-factor.

* Second, if you believe in global warming, find some real evidence. Yeah there may be an elevated level of CO2 in the air now, but CO2 is a piss poor 'greenhouse gas', methane and water vapor work way better. If there is a global warming trend I'd be inclined to think that it's the sun causing it as there is evidence that Mars is warming, also.

From the EPA's Global Warming site:

A warming trend of about 1F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.

Now, OTOH, what's that mean? Average temperatures have increased slightly, but that could be a natural cyclical trend - records don't go back long enough.
Rather than saying "find some real evidence" - plenty exists - you should be saying "what does that evidence really mean?"

Incidentally, on the last Talk of the Nation Science Friday (from NPR), they had a segment on Antarctic science that mentioned global warming studies. Interestingly enough, though parts of the continent are warming, others are cooling, and there's about a 60% cooling trend across the continent.

Global warming is happening - but we have no idea what that means yet.

* Thirdly. What's the best way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? Condoms or Abstinence? Maybe there was a leftist bias on those pages to begin with and they really do refect more acurately scientific evidence?

Depends on your definition of "best". What is the surest way to prevent pregnancy? Abstinence. What is the one that most people would be willing to follow? Condoms.
Look, if what's going on with the Catholic Church is any indication, not even priests can maintain a vow of chastity. To believe that anyone else can is wishful thinking at best and self-delusion at worst.

People will have sex. Teenagers will have sex. While abstinence would be best, they aren't going to do that. We might be able to get them to compromise and wear condoms, and that is much more preferable to the alternative.

Similar is dieting - obesity is a huge [pun intended] problem in this country. The obvious solution - eat less, eat more nutritionally, exercise more, etc. is very tough for a lot of people to do. Humans, in general, tend to lack the willpower for self-denial. So, though people know that they're slowly killing themselves, they continue eating Super-sized big mac meals.

Likewise smoking - anyone who doesn't know at this point that smoking is harmful is an idiot and has been living in a shack for the past sixty years. Nonetheless people still smoke. It takes a whole lot of willpower to change behaviors, particularly when you have to deny yourself immediate gratification - such as the Big Mac, the Marlboro, or the blow job - in exchange for a few possible extra years on your life... at the end, particularly when you don't know if you'll be hit by a bus or drafted and not get to die of natural causes.

In short, this is why condom use is the best way to prevent pregnancy and STDs - it's the one people will actually follow.

-T

The EPA forcing GE to pay to dredge up part of the hudson because of PCB's.

I think the decision weighed whether it was better to leave the PCBs there or to remove them. They decided in the long run it was better to remove them as PCBs don't break down naturally and have a nasty habit of moving up the food chain.

Dredging the river will decimate the shipwrecks

or salvaging the shipwrecks will spread PCBs back into the river, which is one of the big problems with dredging

More info is at the EPA. The article doesn't really mention this, which seems odd, since the PCB/Dredging issue has been a hell of a hot topic in the Upper Hudson Valley for the past year or two.

Volatile organic compounds, or VOC's, can be a major pollutant. I know you get quite a lot of these when you bake bread, for example. It's no big deal when you bake a few loaves at home, but a serious problem when you're talking about a large commercial bakery. I'd imagine that roasting coffee might also produce lots of different VOC's, so I wouldn't be too quick to blow off the complaints of people living near a large roastery.

• The earth has been gradually getting warmer
  
• Certain chemicals synthesized by humans can cause some amount of climate change

• How much of these chemicals have humans added?
  CO2 records go back thousands of years from Greenland ice core data; since the industrial revolution began the era of massive human use of carbon-based fuels, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have already risen 30%, methane concentrations doubled, and nitrogen oxides up 15%. All these chemicals are known to trap heat.
  
• How much climate change can these chemicals cause?
  People have been modeling this year after year for decades with relatively consistent results - a warming on the order of a few degrees C by 2050, much greater warming at the poles than at the equator, increased intensity of storms and other severe weather.

"It will put the white box manufacturers out of business, that's why HP is doing it"

"doubt that companies that get their PC's manufactured in Taiwan will have to pay the fee."

aws like this do nothing but raise costs for consumers. Does anyone in their right mind think HP, etc., will simply eat the cost of this? No. The only reason they're doing it is because it's in California (home base of American liberalism), and if they don't, they'll be totally demonized by militant environmentalists and human rights activists playing on your emotions rather than hard, scientific data.

I love posters that can't think about the consquences of their actions. Once you have kids you begin wondering about the type of legacy you leave behind. I guess we can just tell our kids "Sorry the environment is toxic but some slashdotter wanted to save $35." Get real

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents all kinds of air pollution (literally) in AP-42. Section 13.2.1 addresses paved roads, and section 13.2.2 addresses unpaved roads.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents all kinds of air pollution (literally) in AP-42. Section 13.2.1 addresses paved roads, and section 13.2.2 addresses unpaved roads.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents all kinds of air pollution (literally) in AP-42. Section 13.2.1 addresses paved roads, and section 13.2.2 addresses unpaved roads.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents all kinds of air pollution (literally) in AP-42. Section 13.2.1 addresses paved roads, and section 13.2.2 addresses unpaved roads.

It's worse than that. With SUVs being as they are, the *average* fuel economy of US cars is *way* less now than it was 10 years back. From the EPA site (link here):-

The average fuel economy for all model year 1999 light vehicles is 23.8 miles per gallon (MPG). Within this category, average fuel economy is 28.1 MPG for passenger cars and 20.3 MPG for light-duty trucks. The 1999 fuel economy average is the lowest value since 1980 and is 2.1 MPG less than the peak value of 25.9 MPG achieved in both 1987 and 1988. Average fuel economy for new light vehicles has dropped 1.0 MPG since 1996.

Grab.

I'm not classifying it as a poison. The company that
registered it with the EPA is. See their registration:

BT corn

Resistance is caused by exposure. More exposure= more
resistance. I agree with you that pesticides are
mostly noxious chemicals with bad effects on
human beings.

I dunno, a few other places that I would regard as more reliable and trustworthy on this issue than Slashdot posters seem to suggest that Pay As You Throw should at least be piloted in NYC. Even the EPA is for such programs...

Lal said that he chose only isotopes that emit beta particles because their energy is small enough not to penetrate skin. Radioactive material can emit beta particles, alpha particles or gamma rays--the last two of which are carry enough energy to be hazardous, said Lal.

Lal said that he chose only isotopes that emit beta particles because their energy is small enough not to penetrate skin. Radioactive material can emit beta particles, alpha particles or gamma rays--the last two of which are carry enough energy to be hazardous, said Lal.

Heck, no. I simply wouldn't feel safe knowing that there were hazardous materials inside my computer...

(runs and hides from the Radioactive Boogeyman)

SuperCritical CO2 is one possiblity.

The EPA has released the Top Ten List of fuel economy winners for year 2003. The top slots are occupied by the Hybrid electrics (as expected) followed closely by Diesel cars. Diesel fuel injection systems are responsible for some European cars able to achieve remarkable fuel efficiencies of upto 75 mpg. They also have lower emissions and are quieter to drive. Europe's embrace of Diesel powered vehicles has caused their refiners to unload their excess gasoline across the Atlantic helping keep gasoline prices at our pumps steady even if crude oil prices keep rising. Increasing the popularity of Diesel powered passenger vehicles has always been known to be a part of the solution to meet todays national environmental and energy goals. However, the lineup of cars with diesel engine options for the North American buyer is still very limited. I wonder why . Here is a website dedicated to Turbo Direct Injection Diesel (TDI) cars that are known to have phenomenal fuel efficiency. You can read more about fuel efficient diesel applications in this Diesel Forum .

Second, what happens to the dilution in the waste when the NaH is being created?

Third, they plan to 'heat' the NaOH in order to turn it into solid NaH. How would they heat it? Heating costs energy. Is this possibly a similar scam as to use corn based ethanol to power engines? (everybody knows ofcourse that corn needs an abundance of nitrate rich fertilizer, which in turn requires a lot of energy, eg. oil, to create).

I do however like the NaH + H2O and tank idea as a means to safely transport H2. Down the line, the 'waste' product of this (ie. NaOH dissolved in water) could be used as non-diluted transmission medium for creating new NaOH as the previous poster said.

Look here and notice all the TDi VW's at the way bottom of the list.

If everyone in the country drove a diesel, we'd be relying less on foreign oil, but we wouldn't be able to breathe.

This is a direct quote from the EPA's report on Carbon Dioxide Fire Suppression systems:

Because of the widespread use of Halon 1301 in the United States, which is safer than carbon dioxide at fire-fighting concentrations, there may be a lower awareness of the hazards surrounding carbon dioxide use. Experience has shown that a relatively higher margin of safety has been experienced with the use of Halon 1301 compared to carbon dioxide. This high safety margin may add to the lack of awareness of the dangers involved with using carbon dioxide systems.

do you really think there is just this dangerous gas ready to be released where you work and you have exactly 20 seconds to escape before you die?


If you have a CO2 based total flooding fire suppression system, YES, this is the case! I don't know what the deal is with Halon, but I do know that I work in a NOC in Tokyo, and we have a CO2 based system that has a 30 second warning before the system goes off. After that, the room quickly(60 secs.) fills with CO2 (bringing visibility down to about 0 within a few seconds of discharge) and then poisoning you with CO2.

According to this report from the EPA, high concentration exposure to this type of system will render you unconscious and dead within 30seconds-2 minutes of exposure.

Japan uses gas based fire suppression systems for many different applications. Many of them are Halon based, but some are CO2 based (as is our machine room) This includes multi-level indoor parking garages attached to apartment buildings. I've even seen a halon based system inside this museum!

Gas based systems are used in almost all large scale NOC's. I recently toured a few NOC's in Tokyo, and they all have centrally based Nitrogen gas fire suppression systems. (Which, are not normally dangerous, as they reduce the concentration of oxygen to a level that prevents combustion, but still supports life.)

Note: info taken from a class I once took. Use at your own risk.

One of the obnoxious requirements placed on Superfund sites is that the pollution cannot simply be contained. The entire site has to be made as clean as it was prior to contamination. This is hideously expensive, and sometimes wasteful. But the upshot is that they wouldn't have started construction, the old pollution is probably gone.

You can get more information about the Superfund project, and possibly even the site you're interested in here.

While the idea of a Hydrogen-powered vehicle is a great one, if Slashdot readers are interested in a "more" environmentally-friendly vehicle there are options right now.

Biodiesel (more info here and here) is diesel fuel that will work in any new-ish diesel-powered vehicle with out ANY modifications. Benefits?

- Availability of the vehicle. Volkswagen produces a line of turbo diesel injected vehicles right now. They are available from about US$15k - $30k, depending on which model and features you ask for.
- Availability of the fuel. Biodiesel is NOT as wide-spread as diesel - not by far. But it IS available. There's a station in my hometown, Portland, OR and one down in Eugene, OR. According to the map of refueling sites provided by biodiesel.org, there are nine biodiesel stations in California.
- Cost of the fuel. B20, that is 20% biodiesel and 80% regular diesel, costs about US$1.75/gallon in Portland, OR. That's about what premium/super goes for here, give or take 10 cents. I don't have info on what B100 costs - probably around $2.25 or more or possibly less. Depends on your supplier.
- Biodiesel benefits the American (or local) economy. Biodiesel is created from plants. Soy and such. Soy beans can be grown locally in many places of the world. Oil can be had in America, too, but there's not much of it and one it's gone, it is GONE. More soy beans can be grown at any time.
- Biodiesel is "environmentally friendly". According to the US EPA in this PDF document, use of B100 biodiesel will reduce the output of carbon monoxide from a single veh by 50%. B100 will reduce particulate emissions by 70% (less smog). Total hydrocarbon emissions reduced by 40%. Reductions in sulfate emissions by 100%.
- Biodiesel takes less energy to make than diesel and much less energy to make than gasoline.
- Diesel vehicles, particularly the TDI's from VW, are VERY fuel efficient. Expect to get 40/city, 45+/highway (expessed in miles per gallon). Many people report getting 600+ miles to the tank.

Hydrogen-powered vehicles will be great when they are mass-produced in 10 years. Until then, look at Biodiesel. I think the benefits far outweigh the added expense of the fuel.