Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2731
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <9327eab3.0310291827.631fffde@posting.google.com >, tortrix wrote:
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>...
>
><fanatical anti-socialist, anti-communist crap snipped>
>
>> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas.
> Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts.
> What biology course did YOU take? I got two A's in biology.
> I saw NOWHERE that humans breathe CO2.
> Get a clue: even chemical engineering and chemistry departments
> teach us that ANY chemical is toxic enough in high enough doses:
> even O2 for humans and CO2 for deciduous trees.
Someone is playing usenet games. Nobody is talking about "high enough
doses" in a closed box. In the global environnment he is correct so
long as one considers that plants are alive. CO2 is needed for life
on this planet, it is not poisonous in the levels being discussed (in
the atmosphere). If you think it's poisonous you shouldn't be in the
same room with yourself. Because you spew it every momement of every
day.
> How about the freedom to live in a world with a few trees left,
> some clean air and water, some privacy free of overpopulation,
> and where the quality of life is better than death?
Then why do developing nations get a pass? Why is the environmental movement
not *DEMANDING* that the developing world use known methods of
protecting the environment? Why is the environmental movement supporting
policies that will relocate factories from the USA and western europe
where the environment is protected to nations where it is not protected?
I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not destroyed.
This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and social
agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
excuse and it sickens me.
And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message news:<bnp3rl0vi8@enews3.newsguy.com>...
>
><fanatical anti-socialist, anti-communist crap snipped>
>
>> The bottom line is, CO2 is a non-poisonous, life-sustaining gas.
> Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts.
> What biology course did YOU take? I got two A's in biology.
> I saw NOWHERE that humans breathe CO2.
> Get a clue: even chemical engineering and chemistry departments
> teach us that ANY chemical is toxic enough in high enough doses:
> even O2 for humans and CO2 for deciduous trees.
Someone is playing usenet games. Nobody is talking about "high enough
doses" in a closed box. In the global environnment he is correct so
long as one considers that plants are alive. CO2 is needed for life
on this planet, it is not poisonous in the levels being discussed (in
the atmosphere). If you think it's poisonous you shouldn't be in the
same room with yourself. Because you spew it every momement of every
day.
> How about the freedom to live in a world with a few trees left,
> some clean air and water, some privacy free of overpopulation,
> and where the quality of life is better than death?
Then why do developing nations get a pass? Why is the environmental movement
not *DEMANDING* that the developing world use known methods of
protecting the environment? Why is the environmental movement supporting
policies that will relocate factories from the USA and western europe
where the environment is protected to nations where it is not protected?
I want a clean world where the environment is protected and not destroyed.
This is why I try to buy products made in nations with at least a decent
level of regulation to achieve that goal. However the environmental
movement doesn't stand for that. They stand for some political and social
agenda where the USA is considered evil and the standard of living must
be knocked down several pegs. The environment is being used for an
excuse and it sickens me.
And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
#2732
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
rickety wrote:
> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
something stupid. Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
contemporary cars. The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
feed their greed.
Regards,
Ed White
#2733
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
rickety wrote:
> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
something stupid. Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
contemporary cars. The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
feed their greed.
Regards,
Ed White
#2734
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
rickety wrote:
> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
something stupid. Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
contemporary cars. The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
feed their greed.
Regards,
Ed White
#2735
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F500D0A.D7B16BE2@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> rickety wrote:
>
>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
> When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
> particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
> proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
> huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
> something stupid. Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
> in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
> contemporary cars. The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
> lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
> although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
> were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
> trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
> does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
> in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
> intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
> not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
> feed their greed.
The big problem for ford with the pinto was a known failure mode (the
long seatbelt hold down bolt) that they didn't correct, but instead
did a cost calculation on. But true, pintos were no more prone to
fire than other cars of that size class and era.
>
>
> rickety wrote:
>
>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
> When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
> particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
> proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
> huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
> something stupid. Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
> in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
> contemporary cars. The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
> lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
> although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
> were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
> trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
> does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
> in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
> intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
> not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
> feed their greed.
The big problem for ford with the pinto was a known failure mode (the
long seatbelt hold down bolt) that they didn't correct, but instead
did a cost calculation on. But true, pintos were no more prone to
fire than other cars of that size class and era.
#2736
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F500D0A.D7B16BE2@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> rickety wrote:
>
>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
> When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
> particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
> proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
> huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
> something stupid. Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
> in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
> contemporary cars. The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
> lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
> although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
> were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
> trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
> does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
> in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
> intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
> not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
> feed their greed.
The big problem for ford with the pinto was a known failure mode (the
long seatbelt hold down bolt) that they didn't correct, but instead
did a cost calculation on. But true, pintos were no more prone to
fire than other cars of that size class and era.
>
>
> rickety wrote:
>
>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
> When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
> particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
> proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
> huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
> something stupid. Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
> in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
> contemporary cars. The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
> lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
> although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
> were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
> trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
> does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
> in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
> intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
> not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
> feed their greed.
The big problem for ford with the pinto was a known failure mode (the
long seatbelt hold down bolt) that they didn't correct, but instead
did a cost calculation on. But true, pintos were no more prone to
fire than other cars of that size class and era.
#2737
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F500D0A.D7B16BE2@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> rickety wrote:
>
>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
> When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
> particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
> proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
> huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
> something stupid. Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
> in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
> contemporary cars. The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
> lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
> although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
> were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
> trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
> does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
> in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
> intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
> not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
> feed their greed.
The big problem for ford with the pinto was a known failure mode (the
long seatbelt hold down bolt) that they didn't correct, but instead
did a cost calculation on. But true, pintos were no more prone to
fire than other cars of that size class and era.
>
>
> rickety wrote:
>
>> istr that the story is when they are hit from the rear the fuel tank is
>> prone to rupture and ignite the spillage. Kind of like a big Pinto.
>
> When will you people quit promoting the false idea that Pinto's were
> particualrly prone to fires. They weren't. Ford made the mistake of
> proving this in court and having a jury ignore this and then award a
> huge amount of money to the parents of a teenager that was doing
> something stupid. Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
> in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
> contemporary cars. The toatl number of people killed in Pinto fires is
> lcomparable to the total number of people killed in Chevette fires,
> although many more Pintos were sold. The only reason people think Pintos
> were unique is becasue Ford made the mistake of taking on scum sucking
> trial lawyers instead of just forking over the cash like GM routinely
> does. I guess Ford learned their lesson and now they do the same thing
> in most cases. Until juries are required to have a minimal level of
> intelligence, this will continue. And guess who utimately pays? It is
> not Ford - it is us, the suckers who let trial lawyer harvest victums to
> feed their greed.
The big problem for ford with the pinto was a known failure mode (the
long seatbelt hold down bolt) that they didn't correct, but instead
did a cost calculation on. But true, pintos were no more prone to
fire than other cars of that size class and era.
#2738
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
#2739
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
#2740
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnpmk701sae@enews3.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
> Ironically, there's a piece in today's USA Today regarding the key research
> green have used since the 80's to promote the CO2 / global warming theory.
> In a nutshell, the green's much-heralded research which concluded that
> global temps had increased at a dramatic, unprecedented rate over the second
> half of the 20th century has been challenged and proven faulty, that in
> reality the climate cycle over that period of time was NOT abnormal.
I think I've found the paper mentioned in the article:
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf