Slashdot Mirror


Cow Brains Into Biofuel

beatleadam writes "If the reality of $2.00 per gallon of gas does not scare you enough, then perhaps this will. '...Cattle brains, skull, eyes, spinal column, small intestine and other parts suspected of harboring mad cow disease were banned from human consumption in December as a safety precaution, shortly after the discovery of the first case of mad cow disease in the United States...' The FDA is now funding research aimed at producing biofuels from cattle brains. What about the exhaust given off from cars that are burning Mad Cow Fuels?" It's the grand circle of life.

88 comments

  1. BRRAAAAIIIINNNSSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I've always wondered, is it better to kill a cow without it knowing, or to use the current method of lining the cows up for slaughter?

    Stress causes muscles to tense up and prevents the release of toxins from the muscle tissue into the bloodstream. Relaxed muscles do the opposite and are usually fairly clean because of a fresh supply of aerobic blood.

    If the cows know that they are going to die, wouldn't this increase their stress level and ultimately degrade the flavor and consistency of their meat?

    Perhaps it would be better to pamper the cows and then slaughter them one by one out of sight of other cows who may become distressed.

    Flavorful beef is what I'm after here, but if it also leads to better fuel for my Impala then I'm glad to help start the conversation.

    1. Re:BRRAAAAIIIINNNSSS by karnal · · Score: 1

      "Moo."

      "Come over here, Bessie."

      "Moo. Moo?"

      "Look over at that rainbow. Isn't that pretty?"

      "Moo. Moo moo."

      *BLAM*

      mmmm. tasty.

      --
      Karnal
    2. Re:BRRAAAAIIIINNNSSS by orthogonal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've always wondered, is it better to kill a cow without it knowing, or to use the current method of lining the cows up for slaughter?

      Stress causes muscles to tense up and prevents the release of toxins from the muscle tissue into the bloodstream. Relaxed muscles do the opposite and are usually fairly clean because of a fresh supply of aerobic blood.


      Wrong on two counts.

      Cows do line up, but they don't show any sign of knowing that they're going to die. Noted animal behaviorist Temple Grandin, in her book Thinking in Pictures (which is actually about her autism), writes that cows are stressed to be separated from their fellows, but are calmed to be able see one another -- seeing that the cow in front is unstressed cues the cow behind to be unstressed. Except in Kosher slaughterhouses, death comes so suddenly (either by a bolt shot into the brain or by electrical stunning) that the following cow hasn't time to become upset before it too dies. To help ensure this, Grandin introduced curving passageways, such that the cow can see the cow ahead, but only the cow immediately ahead.

      As to the effects of stress, you're also (mostly) wrong. Stress causes the release of cortisol, but this isn't a toxin per se. But a standard method in societies that butcher and eat meat immediately, is to chase or terrorize animals for a while prior to butchering, not to release cortisol, but to tire the muscles, using up oxygen reserves, so that lactic acid is released. Lactic acid is a natural tenderizer -- it's that "burn" you feel in muscles when you do aerobic exercises (but distinct from the pain of torn muscles as in weight training, although that tearing no doubt adds to the tenderizing too).

      Additionally, in Korea and other countries that believe in the aphrodisiacal properties of dog meat, it is believed that the longer the dog is terrorized and beaten prior to slaughter, the greater the aphrodisiacal properties of the meat.

      If you really want flavorful, tender meat, you want to look to the lineage of the beef, to control fat to muscle ratio, etc., and to the animals' diet -- what do you think "corned beef" is --, to control flavor. To add more flavor and to tenderize met, a good marinade is probably a good bet too.

    3. Re:BRRAAAAIIIINNNSSS by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      You assume way too much of a bovine.

      Cows are incredibly stupid, and not particularly aware of what constitutes a threat and what doesn't. They rely almost completely on a herd mob mentality to decide whether something in dangerous or not, and when they are separated and alone, they don't really make very good decisions about when to get scared.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:BRRAAAAIIIINNNSSS by be951 · · Score: 1
      If you really want flavorful, tender meat, you want to look to the lineage of the beef, to control fat to muscle ratio, etc., and to the animals' diet -- what do you think "corned beef" is...

      Beef that is cured or pickled in brine. Not to be confused with corn fed beef, which is generally considered to be of high quality (the meat is more marbled with fat, and thus usually more tender and flavorful).

    5. Re:BRRAAAAIIIINNNSSS by BSDFreak · · Score: 1

      That's why you use a conveyor belt and murals depicting Mediterranean scenes. That way their attention is diverted away from the rotating knives...

  2. -1, FUD by dant · · Score: 3, Informative
    What about the exhaust given off from cars that are burning Mad Cow Fuels?

    It, like the gasoline put into the car in the first place, will be composed of hydrocarbons vastly too short to be formed into prions.

    Go read up on what refineries do and how they work. It will put your mind at ease about this 'threat', plus which it's a fascinating problem they have to solve. Every day a refinery doesn't blow itself to smithereens is a testament to the skill of the engineers who built it.

    1. Re:-1, FUD by Directrix1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mad cow disease is bad enough, but MAD CAR disease? Its a plot by Al Qaeda I tells ya!

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    2. Re:-1, FUD by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 1
      In addition, a strongly hydrophobic environment, as present in a petroleum-based fuel, tends to inactivate prions. One of the theories regarding the outbreak of BSE in Great Britain goes as follows:
      Meat-and-Bone meal (MBM) based feeds have been used for decades but did not cause significant number of BSE cases. First cases came up in the early 80ies. Five years before, MBM production has been changed. Due to economic reasons, a fat extraction step using hot hydrocarbon solvents was omitted. It is believed that this extraction step inactivated potentially infectious prions - which can be shown in vitro.

      So cow-brain based fuel would most likely not contain any infectious particles. And even if it did, they would most likely be decomposed at burning temperatures in the engine.

      --
      This comment does not exist.
  3. Woot! Once They Figure It Out... by MBCook · · Score: 2, Funny
    ...I won't have to stop and pay for gas when driving through cattle country! Everytime I run low and gas I can just take a trip through a field with cows and see how many "gallons" I can hit! All I need is a little mini-processing station in my car when they get it right. And I bet I could cook burgers and steaks on my engine block so I use all parts of the cow! I'm "eco-friendly"!

    Now all I need to do is figure out what kind of cows make the highest octane gas. Longhornds, or maybe Angus. I wonder if milk vs. beef cows makes a difference.

    If the cow is "corn-fed beef", does that mean the fuel I'd make has ethonol? If the cows are fed beans, would my car have to be able to run on Methane to use the fuel made from the cows?

    Oh, there are just too many jokes. :)

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:Woot! Once They Figure It Out... by wayne606 · · Score: 1

      > I'm "eco-friendly"!

      You mean e-cow-friendly ...

    2. Re:Woot! Once They Figure It Out... by Smidge204 · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's to figure out? It's called thermal depolymerization (TDP) and has been around for awhile now. I'm surpized more farm waste isn't utilized in this manner.

      I also propose running the TDP plants off of geothermal whenever possible. Plenty hot enough and it's essentially free energy for the taking.

      How many (millions?) or tons of organic waste is produced in the USA due to farming alone? Think of all the light crude that could produce... Once you have the oil, you can use regular refinery techniques to turn it into any number of distillate products.

      I'd like to see a future where you don't just recycle metal cans and glass/plastic bottles, but kitchen and yard waste as well. So sense dumping it all into a landfill when it can at least be used for something!
      =Smidge=

    3. Re:Woot! Once They Figure It Out... by jtev · · Score: 1

      Anyone intelegent is already recycling yard waste, it's called a compost pile, by using a readily available mix of bacteria, all native to the area in which the yard resides the yard waste is turned into high quality soil. this is then used to enrich the soil for soil leaching crops in your vegitable garden. People who put it in the landfill are idiots.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    4. Re:Woot! Once They Figure It Out... by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      People who put it in the landfill are idiots.

      Or people without gardens or other uses for compost... which is probably a much higher percentage of people than you think, specially in urban environments. Even people who live in suburbia and have gardens have problems composting and using all the yard and kitchen waste they generate. Hence, it gets thrown into plastic bags and put out at the curb for a special pickup. (Some areas let you sweep it out into the street and they come by with a big vacuum truck to collect it)

      Where does it go after that? I'm guessing it doesn't make it's way out to the farms... so I propose you collect it and turn it into oil. Once you have that, you can make:

      -Fuels
      -Plastics
      -Greases, oils and other lubricants
      -High potency fertilizers
      -Insecticides

      (All of which benefit food growers in one way or another, and...)

      -Almost anything else you can make from petrolium

      This is a fantastic use for it, because it's easier to find alternative, environmentally friendly ways to get petrolium than it is to ween the public off of it entirely. If you honestly believe a heartful lecture on the virtues of composting is going to convince billions of people around to world to stop using petrolium based products, you're the idiot!
      =Smidge=

    5. Re:Woot! Once They Figure It Out... by jtev · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anything about stoping using petrolium products. I said that there was a better use for yard products. I said that it's already a bad idea to put them in the landfill. There are already many technologies that allow you to turn worthless biological stuff into energy, one of the simplest is a compost pile, another one that yeilds human usable energy is a methane digester. All that realy needs to be studied is the viablity of these existing technologies and methodologies, not new technologies that do what nature already does. Enhancements to these existing technologies and methodologies would be a much better use of our resources, however that is neither here nor there. Also many communties already have special programs for yard waste to be composted instead of going into the landfill. Sorry, I'm not the most linear person in the world.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
  4. Demeaning to life by rigau · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am not opposed to looking into diferent sources for energy. However i really dislike the tone of the article. I find it very disturbing how little value people give to life. It is sad that people make fun of things like this. I am not an animal rights advocate but still animals are not simply on earth so we can use them up. and when we do use them for our benefit we should be mindful of the sacrifice they made. the second we are cruel to animals needlesly we begin to lose our humanity and we begin being cruel to other human beings. most serial killer ans psychopaths abused animals in their youth. anyway i was ust upset about the general tone of it being a joke that they killed a bunch of cows because WE were assholes and gave them their own shit to eat while we raised them to kill them to eat them ourselves and now we rea trying to look for ways to turn their innnards into energy.

    1. Re:Demeaning to life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up.

      i really dislike the tone of the article
      Then don't read it. I could care less if you're offended by something on the internet. Quit whining.

      animals are not simply on earth so we can use them up
      Yes, they are. That's why we're at the top of the food chain.

      we should be mindful of the sacrifice they made
      If it weren't for someone raising that cow to be slaughtered and grilled, it wouldn't have ever been raised in the first place.

      most serial killer ans psychopaths abused animals in their youth
      Raising an animal to slaughter it for food and fuel is a lot different than torturing animals for fun.

      anyway i was ust upset about the general tone of it being a joke that they killed a bunch of cows because WE were assholes and gave them their own shit to eat while we raised them to kill them to eat them ourselves and now we rea trying to look for ways to turn their innnards into energy.
      Holy crap... Learn to speak English correctly, or I'll grind your brain up and process it into fuel for my car. We'd savea precious cow that way.

    2. Re:Demeaning to life by qengho · · Score: 1, Troll


      I find it very disturbing how little value people give to life. It is sad that people make fun of things like this. I am not an animal rights advocate but still animals are not simply on earth so we can use them up.

      Thanks for expressing a compassionate viewpoint. Now prepare yourself for the onslaught of PETA-hating vegetarian-bashing omnivores who make up the majority of Slashdot posters on subjects like this...

    3. Re:Demeaning to life by TykeClone · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I find it very disturbing how little value people give to life.

      If you're going to slaughter the animal anyway for food, wouldn't it be best to use whatever is left over in any way possible? I think that just using part of the animal and throwing the rest out is wasteful and more disrespectful than converting it into another use!

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    4. Re:Demeaning to life by rigau · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry that I can't type to your satisfaction.

      My comment had nothing to do with raising animals to eat them.

      I was bothered by the tone that the post at the top took about this issue, namely that it is a joke.

      It isn't a joke. It isn'f funny. This mindset is very damaging to the environment but more damaging to out interaction among ourselves. The kind of person that abuses animals or jokes about their suffering is not diferent to those who do the same with human beings.

      I also don't care if my comment bothers you seems to me that you are just as guilty of the bahavior you accuse me of.

    5. Re:Demeaning to life by Pyromage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dislike the moral high ground on things like this, because I don't think it works. Consider: In order for you to live, other things must die. Period. It is impossible for you to live without causing the death of animals and plants.

      The second thing is this: is it not better to use the cows more completely, rather than wasting large parts of them? If it was me being slaughtered instead of them - aside from the question of whether I want to be slaughtered, that's not important. If it *was* me, then - I would be much happier if they used most of me, rather than just killing me and taking my toenails.

      And besides, it is kinda funny ;)

    6. Re:Demeaning to life by qengho · · Score: 1


      I dislike the moral high ground on things like this....In order for you to live, other things must die. Period. It is impossible for you to live without causing the death of animals and plants.

      True, but one can reduce the number of animals killed and the resources wasted raising them. The issue isn't "the moral high ground", it's efficient use of limited resources.

    7. Re:Demeaning to life by o1d5ch001 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Oh my, what I love about left-leaning herb(avor) eating pinko communists is that they love to tell other people how bad and wrong and evil they are. Since most left leaning pinko communists are moral relativists, I don't know how they determine how something is good or bad.. but getting back to the subject....

      There are many people in the world who believe that thier God gave to them the right to consume all that they can. After all, it was provided by God for them. So don't be surprised when people assume they have the right to do whatever the hell they want with the 10 tonne tracktor-trailer full of PCBs, maybe dump it in your lettuce patch.

      Warning: opinion

      The world is out of balance. The rules of property and fair-use are out of wack. Lets think back to circa 1776 and what the American Rebels had in mind. They wanted free Men to be able to be free of the tyranny of kings and mobs (slashdot anyone?!) and build the best, most tranquil future any christian white man could imagine.

      Fast Forward to the wide-spread use of the train. Steam trains are pretty destructive vehicles when they burn coal and wood, they spew huge hot cinders into fields and burn down crops. The farm owners sue the railways, who are barely making payroll. The railways then get the government to pass laws so the farmers can't sue the railways for damages. How does this relate to consuming vast amounts of resources without a thought.. Once the railway owners could trample the rights of farmers to get compensation for losses created by steam trains, the legislature placed corporate welfare above indivdual freedom and created the environment for alot of corporations and indivduals to place themselves above the law and above you, the citizen.

      Imagine a different reality. Imagine that the space you inhabit is legally yours and people can't impose. Extended assault laws if you will that prevent people from creating enough pollution that you would be impacted. In a city for example, driving a car, along with the other million people is like assulting the individual who suffers from asthma. Now I am starting to sound like a pinko communist.

      It is obvious to me that the left has failed to make any impact in actually creating change on how people view thier world and thier place in it. The left ends up being coop-ted by commercialist and merchants and governments: choose this fuel effecient car, it the green car. What!$%^@%$! A green car, what is that.

      Anyways, people need to stop telling other people what to do, but they also need to stop imposing thier pollution on others with penalty. BTW, creating a government tax as penalty doesn't really change peoples behaviors.

      --
      Q. What is Calvin's monster snowman called? A. The Torment Of Existence Weighed Against The Horror of Non Being
    8. Re:Demeaning to life by pr0c · · Score: 2, Insightful

      TykeClone:
      If you're going to slaughter the animal anyway for food, wouldn't it be best to use whatever is left over in any way possible?


      NOTHING is left after using an animal for food. It is all used somewhere whether it be other animal food such as dogs (not other ruminants however) or some other use.. its all used already. I know that brain and nervous system parts have been banned in the US since the mad cow case (by the way, she got lame giving birth, she was not a sick cow even..) but before that and some remains true today brains along with most all other organs make their way into the human food chain in the form of fat, etc. In many cases organs are mixed with fat to make lean beef (McDonald's for example NOT TROLL) appear to be better. Anyone reading this, do yourself a favor, DO NOT look into how sausage, jerkey or hamburger is processed if you enjoy eating it.

    9. Re:Demeaning to life by TykeClone · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I hear that - and try not to think about hot dogs.

      More intriguing is the use of manure. Cattle are not raised in confinement so much yet, but hogs are. Some of the confinement sites in Iowa make as much waste as small cities - and the biggest problem with it is that you need to plan to get rid of it. They make so much waste in such a small place that it becomes a problem (both ecologically and "smellologicallY").

      If that manure can easily be converted into oil - that solves 3 problems very easily (excess manure running off into streams and creeks, smell, fuel).

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    10. Re:Demeaning to life by Pyromage · · Score: 1

      Which also makes this a good idea 8-}

    11. Re:Demeaning to life by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      They do use all the parts of the cow! Nothing gets wasted.

      Ahh, you say, but there are parts of cow that I would never want to eat! Like the bunghole! Well have you ever eaten a sausage before? Then you've eaten said bunghole.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    12. Re:Demeaning to life by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for expressing a compassionate viewpoint. Now prepare yourself for the onslaught of PETA-hating vegetarian-bashing omnivores who make up the majority of Slashdot posters on subjects like this...

      This person is not being a troll. He/she is just being observant.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    13. Re:Demeaning to life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      NOTHING is left after using an animal for food. I know that brain and nervous system parts have been banned in the US since the mad cow case.

      So, SOMETHING is left over. That's why they are trying to make biofuel from it.

    14. Re:Demeaning to life by be951 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Don't you mean "demeaning to animal byproducts"? That's what we're really talking about here. Parts of slaughtered cattle that were previously used or disposed of in other ways now must be processed in a way that accounts for the risk of BSE. This is a program aimed at making that less of a cost burden to beef producers.

      Cattle are (and have been for quite some time) systematically raised and slaughtered for meat. This project by the FDA doesn't change that one whit. It simply addresses how to deal with waste material that could be hazardous. If the former (slaughtering cattle in general) bothers you, that's fine. But the latter (waste disposal) should reduce the risk of mad cow type infections in cattle and humans. That's a good thing.

    15. Re:Demeaning to life by Jason+Ford · · Score: 1

      I take objection to your statement that in order for one to live, other things must die. While this may be true, many people, including myself, feel compelled to reduce the amount of suffering that we cause in the world. I am probably not able to eliminate the suffering that I cause, but I am certainly able to reduce it.

      As a vegan, I detest the use of animals for food. However, for those people who do use animals for their own purposes, I do agree that the least-wasteful approach is best. (Hence, the cow industry saying, "We use everything but the moo.")

      --
      I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
    16. Re:Demeaning to life by pr0c · · Score: 1

      Hmm sounds like you are confused. See what they are trying to accomplish is to find a BETTER alternative use (potentially increase income) for 'left overs' that benefits many parties at the same time. Nice try though...

      Might I suggest growing some balls and post without the anonymous coward box checked and we could discuss this further troll.

    17. Re:Demeaning to life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, at least your name is spelled right, but being a vegan makes you almost as gay as that fag Jaysyn with a faggy spelling of the name.

    18. Re:Demeaning to life by jonskerr · · Score: 1

      >Raising an animal to slaughter it for food and fuel is a lot different than torturing animals for fun.
      You obviously know NOTHING about modern industrialized farming practices. Do a little research before your knee-jerk response pops out of your ignorant brain. Raising cattle the way it was done prior to the early 80s was a lot different. Nowadays cattle and other food animals are not treated with any humanity (nor are people for that matter). The term humanity has become a joke, in fact.

      --
      O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
  5. so what is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the same thing as the turkey guts to oil in a big pressure cooker thing?

  6. Repulsive by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Interesting


    why not burn our dead people not spawn the bovine damned

    ?

    the horror

    .

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:Repulsive by jtev · · Score: 1

      I say let's burn everything. Any waste biological. Cows, pigs, sheep, people, dogs, cats, whatever. Of course some people have religious objections to this, so I don't know how we'd deal with that. Especialy some sects and degrees of christianity, who feel that creamation makes it so that you can't rise again at the second coming.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    2. Re:Repulsive by sydb · · Score: 1

      Well said. In the UK, at least, we burn them anyway - cremation. Smoke into the sky.

      Leave the animals alone - yes, I say stop eating them (I'm a near-vegan (eggs, dairy, leather I bought before I woke up) because animals are sentient, I know because I am one. I rock on both counts.) - and do something sensible with our own waste.

      I would be more than happy to sign up for my body being burnt for fuel after I die, but I don't plan for that to happen for around 50 years. Unless I'm hit by some fuckwit in his SUV on the way to the petrol ("gas") station! I hope I leave a big dent in his bonnet ("hood") and dried blood over the paint job. Bastard!

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    3. Re:Repulsive by Pyromage · · Score: 1

      Because the bovine damned will give us beef TWICE! Zombie meat!

      I mean, what would you do if the humans came back instead? Hmm, we'd probably make them fill out forms if they resurrected without their social security cards...

  7. Re:Huh? by avalys · · Score: 1

    Hmm...I meant to post that from the safety of cowardly anonymity.

    I'll just slink into the corner now.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  8. The Mootrix by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Funny

    This sounds like a set-up for some sort of bovine Matrix, only this time the computers are powered by cow-brains.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  9. Me? I'm scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This kind of thing can happen. I caught brontosaurus flu once from sniffing a car's tailpipe. You'd think that the diseases from the animals turned into the fuel would go away, but nooOOOO.

  10. Why would it scare me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why would $2.00/gal for gas scare me? Two dollars isn't a damn thing. I go through two dollars in coffee while I'm sitting at breakfast reading the newspaper at the local diner, before work. Two dollars is three minutes of work in the office. For an hour's worth of work, I can afford 20 gallons of gasoline which will take me about 500 miles in any direction I want. That's seven seconds of my time to afford a mile's worth of gas. That's a pretty sweet deal!

    And if I were too poor to afford a measely $10/wk for gas, I could save a whole lot of money by taking public transportation. For a $50/mo bus pass, I could save by not having to pay gas, maintainance, tune-ups, insurance, lease, tolls and everything else that's related to owning a car.

    In fact, I make about $120,000/yr and am 31 years old and do not own a car. I never have owned a car. I don't have a driver's license and have never even been behind the wheel of a car. Why waste that kind of money on something that only depreciates over time when I can just put out $50 for a bus pass and even gain an extra two hours per day to read the newspaper, technical manuals, listen to music, watch movies on my DVD player and whatever else I feel like doing that morning or evening?

    People who complain about gas need to get themselves in check. Gas is cheap. Driving is something you do because you want to. Either deal with the expense and stop complaining or stop driving and take public transit or ride a bike or something. Cars aren't fucking necessities for fuck's sake.

    1. Re:Why would it scare me? by Pyromage · · Score: 1

      Get off your fucking high horse. Yes, they are not necessary everywhere, but you do realize that 1) It pisses me off when the price of gas goes up for no reason other than to screw the consumer out of more money, and 2) that $2.00 is NOT cheap, not for a huge number of people. Your six figures is not average. There're millions of people who don't have quality bus access (now maybe they *should*, but fix it before you preach).

      And yes, gas DOES go up for no reason. When demand remains unchanged, and the price of crude remains unchanged, it stands to reason that the price should be fairly constant, not jumping tens of percent. Back when gas first had hit $1.75, which was high not so very long ago, crude had gone up about 50 cents per BARREL. Per 55 gallon drum. The 20% increase in cost per gallon does NOT follow whatsoever.

    2. Re:Why would it scare me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If gas is too expensive, there's a simple solution: don't drive.

    3. Re:Why would it scare me? by Y+Ddraig+Goch · · Score: 1

      I don't normally respond to AC's but this needs to be addressed. CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF NOT ALL OF AMERICA LIVES IN A F*&%ING CITY. I live in rural Pennsylvania (most of PA is rural) I travel 40 miles round trip to work each day. I'm 44 years old I only make 1/3 of what you make. Gas is not cheap, I drive because I have too. There is NO PUBLIC TRANSIT. Stop being such a self centered left wing hypocrit and look beyond your own personal situation for once.

      --
      Meddle thou not in the affairs of Dragons, for thou art crunchy and with most anything.
    4. Re:Why would it scare me? by Y+Ddraig+Goch · · Score: 1

      Please see my comment to the parent. To paraphrase, I don't have a choice! There is more rual America than there is Cities...

      --
      Meddle thou not in the affairs of Dragons, for thou art crunchy and with most anything.
    5. Re:Why would it scare me? by ndixon · · Score: 1
      If gas is too expensive, there's a simple solution: don't drive.
      Or get used to driving cars like this
      --
      Oh, how convenient: a theory about God that doesn't involve looking through a telescope.
    6. Re:Why would it scare me? by Y+Ddraig+Goch · · Score: 1

      It dosen't go on sale in the US until 2006, would you want to drive on a 4 lane highway with tractor-trailers at 70+ MPH in that thing. It was bad enough in my Subaru Justy. I can't imagine how much that little thing would be "tossed" around by turbulance.

      --
      Meddle thou not in the affairs of Dragons, for thou art crunchy and with most anything.
    7. Re:Why would it scare me? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      What torques me about the recent sudden increase in gas prices is that the whole country is paying the price for New York and California's special "eco-friendly" blend! The refineries must now handle twice as many grades as before.

      My suggestion: The refineries should stand up to those two states saying, "We make standard 87 and premium. If you want to make your own mix, fine. We'll sell you the base fuel, you add your witch's brew." That would pass the burden of their eco-wackiness onto their citizens, not the rest of us!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    8. Re:Why would it scare me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People don't die for lack of transport.

      And $2 is far lower than what the Europeans pay, and we still have car ownership down into some of the very poorest members of society.

      Anyway, it was $2.10 in Oregon last I was there.

    9. Re:Why would it scare me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may surprise you, but *you don't have to live 40 miles from your job*.

    10. Re:Why would it scare me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure yourself and people like you who whine about gas costing a whopping $2 gladly spend a few bucks a week on lotto tickets (tax for the stupid) and $4/pack for smokes of which many of you smoke at least one or two packs I'm sure. And I'm sure you and those like you happily dish out for expensive beer and alcohol at the end of a day.

      Try putting it into perspective. Two bucks isn't shit. Learn to budget.

      And before you bitch at me for making assumptions about you, fuck you for making assumptions that I'm "left wing". I'm conservative you stupid prick. I simply have the intelligence to know that if I don't want to deal with the expense of something I should find another solution. If I don't like the price of gas I should not drive. I don't like the cost of cable television so I don't have cable television. Sure, it's not the same in manner of necessity but you get the point.

      Gas costs what peopel will pay for it, regardless of the reason the price increases. If gas shoots up to $5/gallon and people still pay for it, that's their problem. If you whine that "well, I have to have gas to get to work I have NO CHOICE"... well.. then clearly $5/gallon is tolerable! Whatever price they charge you is just fine until it reaches the point that you are no longer willing to buy it.

      I'm tired of your whiney types wanting everything your way. Grow the fuck up. Gas is pricey (to you). Cowboy up and be a man.

    11. Re:Why would it scare me? by Y+Ddraig+Goch · · Score: 1

      No I don't when I bought my house I was only 5 miles from my job. But then life happened.

      --
      Meddle thou not in the affairs of Dragons, for thou art crunchy and with most anything.
    12. Re:Why would it scare me? by Y+Ddraig+Goch · · Score: 1

      1) No Lotto, 2) No Smokes 3) Budwiser tastes like shit! 4) At least I have the courage to use my /. profile and not post as AC! Gas has no reason to be $2 a gallon. That's my beef. Why not explore alternative fuels. The oil reserves won't last forever. I dislike having my way of life held hostage so that some big hot shot in Dallas can make an extra $1 million at my expense.

      --
      Meddle thou not in the affairs of Dragons, for thou art crunchy and with most anything.
  11. Efficiency by me98411 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just out of curiosity... It is said that when you move form one level in food chain to next, only 10% of energy is tranferred. (For e.g. if a cow eats 100 Joules worth of grass, then human who eat cow get 10 Joules from those 100 J ). Taking this 10% efficiency rule in to account, would it not be better if we invested in obtaining power from plants rather than from animal's flesh? Am I missing something here?

    1. Re:Efficiency by rigau · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think this is implying that there will be mad cow epidemics on a regular basis and that we need to learn how to use the cows that have to be killed so that they are not totally wasted. it is really about efficiency. twisted but 'efficient'.

    2. Re:Efficiency by croddy · · Score: 1

      there are millions of acres of farm-land idled by federal subsidies. we'd do better to pull the subsidies and invest the money in programs to support corn-based ethanol fuel. most existing cars would require a simple timing adjustment to use blends of ethanol+gasoline.

    3. Re:Efficiency by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      But then you wouldn't get the tasty, tasty meat!

      Also, if the cow gets 100J of energy from grass, and humans get 10J from the cow - wouldn't it be nice to convert some of the rest of the cow (the waste into other forms of energy for us to use?

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  12. What like this ? by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 2, Informative
    The Mootrix

    Can't find it but PETA (I think) did a Mootrix take off as well as a video, was pretty funny on "farm raised" animals stuck in the Mootrix

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
  13. PETA nightmare... by Eneff · · Score: 1

    Imagine that biodiesel and blends catches on to the extent that you don't know if you're using it or not.

    Would PETA demand a boycott of all diesel?

    Now imagine that this somehow kept fuel prices down even a few pennies. Not wearing a fur coat is one thing, but paying more for gas?

    Animal rights is doomed.

    (It's funny. Laugh.)

  14. Get America Mooooooooooving! by tzanger · · Score: 2, Funny

    We should really be able to milk this for all it's worth; there's a lot at steak [sic]. Let's just hope it's not udderly ridiculous, as it behooves us to grab the bull by the horns and find alternative fuels. Hopefully this steers the industry into greener pastures.

    ok. I think that's out of my system now... Sorry.

  15. Cow Prices by xp · · Score: 1

    So instead of gas prices going up we will have beef prices going up.

    --
    Notes on Reality

  16. The Meatrix by antizeus · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Here: The Meatrix.

    It's a Flash animation thing. If you'd prefer a web page, look here: Action Page.

    --
    -- $SIGNATURE
  17. Send more Farmers by Goon+Number+1 · · Score: 1

    IIRC, Burning the zombies in The Return of the Living Dead just made more zombies... this may not be the best option.

    --
    http://radio.weblogs.com/0103443/
  18. Re:Huh? by br0ck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    COMBUSTED

    The prions that cause BSE are incredibly hardy and are extremely heat resistant! They can easily withstand 1 hour at 360 C.

    IDIOT

    Why not just state your case without the flame? Take a deep breath, relax, think happy thoughts.. then post.

  19. I dream of $2.00 / Gallon... by cei · · Score: 1

    $2.00 per gallon would be a luxury. That may be the national average, but right now in California, the cheapest 87 octane I can find is $2.299. I've heard that it's well into the $2.80's in some of the more remote desert areas of California too.

    --
    This sig intentionally left justified.
    1. Re:I dream of $2.00 / Gallon... by frugle · · Score: 1

      oh how $2 per gallon would affect my life... In the UK we're currently paying close to $7 per gallon - most of which as you probably know is TAX. It sucks.

      --
      http://www.frugle.co.uk/
    2. Re:I dream of $2.00 / Gallon... by Froggie · · Score: 1

      Actually it's more like $5, cos American gallons are wussy and small. (83.9p/litre, $1.80 exchange rate)

      And if they didn't tax petrol they'd just tax something else to make up the money. Personally I'd sooner see the tax used to discourage people from burning petrol.

  20. Perhaps not. by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Mad Cow disease is a disease of prions - and from here

    IV. PRIONS Prions are extremely resistant to conventional inactivation procedures including irradiation, boiling, dry heat and chemicals (formalin, betapropiolactione, alcohols). Most procedures reduce infectivity rather than eliminate it. All treated contaminated materials should be discarded through the infectious waste stream and incinerated. Use DISPOSABLE plastic labware whenever possible.
    1. Complete and sign the Notification of the Proposed Destruction of Select Agents Form
    2. EHRS will notify the PI or lab manager when destruction is approved.
    3. Inactivate prions by one of the following methods:
    4. * Autoclave dry waste at 132 C for 4.5 hours.
    5. * Treat large volumes of infectious liquid waste containing prions with 1N NaOH (final concentration) followed by autoclaving at 132 C for 4.5 hours.
    6. * Treat with phenol (1:1); guanidine hydrochloride or isocyanate (>4 mol/L); 1N NaOH (final concentration); sodium hypochlorite (>2% free chlorine) for 24 hours.
    7. Dispose of inactivated prion waste as infectious waste.


    Somehow I doubt you can made good fuel this way. Besides which I personally still wouldnt touch the stuff even after all of this had been done to it. And that is what I teach my students as well.
    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    1. Re:Perhaps not. by be951 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Somehow I doubt you can made good fuel this way.

      Well, no. Not that way. But thermal deploymerization seems likely to work rather well. It uses significantly higher temperatures plus high pressure to break down almost anything into short chain hydrocarbons useful for fuel, plus minerals (useful for fertilizer) and water. Here's an example. I believe it has not been specifically tested for destroying prions, but the chemistry indicates that it will.

  21. biomass? or weaponized biotoxin by perlchild · · Score: 1
    What about the exhaust given off from cars that are burning Mad Cow Fuels?"

    Just what's so magical about this bacterium/virus that it can survive(and pass through to the final airborne infection factor)
    a) a filtering
    b) liquefaction
    c) sedimentation
    d) combustion of its now liquid base
    e) any other prevention methods we should think of before using potentially infected biofluids as fuel

    And still be considered a threat? Is that one of those weaponized biotoxins, instead of (the latest information I had) a cow virus transmissible only through bone marrow/spinal fluid exchange between bovines(and in some cases, the exact transmission rate not known, or at least, not spoken of in the non-specialist literature) humans...

    Is this another case of FUD?

    For that matter, why is there research into brains, which are not fit for consumption(and therefore have to be disposed of). Instead of using methane, which are also cowbyproducts, and which another study showed made cows a strong source of greenhouse gases? Why not recuperate methane(major component of natural gas) and use it instead?

    It reminds me of that research that said fluor was chosen to purify water instead of chlorine not because of its price or abundance of efficiency(at the time, the text didn't mention later studies) but because it was a common by product of aluminum extraction?

    Is the western corporate world so desperate about industrial "clean up bills" as that?
    1. Re:biomass? or weaponized biotoxin by be951 · · Score: 1
      Is the western corporate world so desperate about industrial "clean up bills" as that?

      In a word, yes. I'm not certain what the real risk of infection is when the parts are not ingested, rather just left lying around but it is a good bet there is risk. So, the waste in question has to be disposed of one way or another. The goal here is to do it in a cost effective way with a useful byproduct. To answer your prior question, BSE is caused by prions, a protein particle that is similar to, but not quite a virus. They are also notoriously hard to destroy or denature(I don't think they are properly classed as alive).

    2. Re:biomass? or weaponized biotoxin by perlchild · · Score: 1

      Thanks for clearing that up. That would explain the "let's get rid of them" attitude. Maybe you can explain how making sure they are carried all over the place so they can be burned, if they are THAT hard to destroy, is justifiable then, considering that if the "transform-to-fuel" parts miss some prions, we have an infection agent being carried all over the place.

      Or maybe that was the point "cost-effective" doesn't include the cost of the risks? (In the geopoliticolegal environment of the USA, as seen from Canada, it sure looks that way sometimes). It also explains only partway why cow brains are more interesting as fuel(despite their proteic nature) than methane(a highly efficient hydrocarbon, aka Natural Gas)

    3. Re:biomass? or weaponized biotoxin by be951 · · Score: 1
      Maybe you can explain how making sure they are carried all over the place so they can be burned, if they are THAT hard to destroy, is justifiable then, considering that if the "transform-to-fuel" parts miss some prions, we have an infection agent being carried all over the place.

      I'm not certain I understand what you're asking, but I'll try to make things clearer. First, if unprocessed waste is transported, I believe is would be subject to whatever controls similar potentially dangerous wastes are subject to. If you're asking "what if some prions survive?", I think the answer is that for a process to meet the criteria, it must be proven to destroy all prions.

      Regarding methane from cows, I think the problem is collecting it cost effectively, and in a manner that isn't abusive to the cow. Yeah, we're going to kill them anyway, but it is still wrong and illegal to abuse them prior to slaughter. If you can come up with a way to do that, more power to ya (pun intended).

  22. Re:Huh? by Crash+Gordon · · Score: 1

    The prions that cause BSE ... can easily withstand 1 hour at 360 C.

    Assuming that prions survive the process of being converted to fuel, how long do they last at typical diesel combustion temperatures, which start around 550C and go up?

    Of course, we'll have to be sure to label bovine-derived biodiesel "Not for human consumption"...

  23. This guy deserves +mods by MachDelta · · Score: 1

    Props for putting it so elequently man! I couldn't have done it. My opinion of cows is that they're somewhere between a plastic bucket and a not-too-smart rock. And thats an insult to plastic buckets and rocks.

    I don't know why, but people today seem to have this idea that cows are cute and can talk like they do on TV - it'd be hillarious if it weren't sad. But in reality they're just some of the stupidest creatures you'll ever find. Dogs can be smart. Horses can be smart. But cows? Not even close. Name just about any other common farm animal, and chances are its twice as smart as a cow (notable exception: chickens). Cows know as much about whats going on around them as we do about extraterrestrial culture: Sweet F.A.

    So just shoot the stupid things and put em on my plate, in my car, or wherever else they have a use. At least then they'll serve a purpose. :)

    1. Re:This guy deserves +mods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you allow that somewhere in the Universe, there are beings that, not being as stupid as we are, could say the same about us?
      And that the cow's feelings can mean the same to the cow, that your feelings mean to you?

  24. Back in my day ... by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

    ... we used oxes to power transportation. Those were the days, man!

    oops!

  25. 2 dollars? by den_erpel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    $2.00 per gallon of gas

    I really don't know what people are complaining about, $2 dollars per gallon is not that expensive.

    This is $0.46 per litre.
    This morning, I payed 1.1 Euro per litre, or $1.46 or $6.30 per gallon; a surplus of $4.32 per gallon.

    OK, I admit that this is expensive, but the world does not stop and our economy is running pretty smoothly (could always go better, I admit).

    Just put those $2 measly dollars per gallon into perspective and perhaps, just perhaps, consider other (alternative) means of transportation...

    --
    Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
  26. Gas prices by DiscoOnTheSide · · Score: 1

    Those soaring gas prices are why I'm switching to a Diesel VW Passat. Turbo-charged 4-cyl. diesel.. 0-60 in 9 seconds (fairly respectable), 5 speed manual (I hate automatic) 50-60 hwy mpg, 1000 mile range on a full tank of gass and its a Passat, so it's a nice car. Nevermind the fact diesel is still hovering around $1.60 a gallon. :)

    --
    Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
  27. Okaaaay... by Dibblah · · Score: 1

    So does anyone else wonder what they did with all this nutrient filled goodness BEFORE BSE was thought of as a threat?

  28. The Solution. by torpor · · Score: 1

    Lets see them make Oil out of Soylent Green! Yeah baby, now THERE is some compassion ...

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  29. Ritualized Bigotry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But in reality they're just some of the stupidest creatures you'll ever find.

    Just like Jews and Americans and The Terrorists and The Nazi's, and the French, and anyone from Florida, and those Afghani's, and the Chinese and the ...

    Your kind of thinking leads to big smoke stacks full of 'stupid things being consumed for the greater good of all'...

  30. Deists, not Christians by bandy · · Score: 1

    A-hem. Many of our founding fathers were Deists and specifically not Christians. Read the writings of Thomas Payne.

    --
    "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
  31. Re:Huh? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

    550 deg. C after compression, and as high as 2000 deg. C during the actual combustion process!

    =Smidge=

  32. Re:Huh? by k_yarina · · Score: 1

    Can you find a better reference than a 12 year old academic paper?