Why do you think that bypassing emissions systems on vehicles and heavy equipment is now a approaching being a multi billion dollar a year industry? Do you think it's because all those people that the environment or more likely because dont like getting screwed over on BS regulations that make everything worse on every functional level that were made by people who have proven they have very poor understanding of the rational realistic science behind their wants and agendas?
If you want a honest answer to that i will give it then you go put me on ignore ok, its big business because your always going to get selfish people. Its large because the world is full of people that think environmental issues are not there problem and they deserve different rules.
So these people prey on the selfish who pay for the bypass, far from being a agenda of some sort, its mostly science led evidence that has started to bring about tighter rules. The one thing most agree on however is the simple fact the rules are not strict enough, we have passed the point we can avoid severe issues. For now the best that can happen is to try and manage the consequences, sure you mock it and think its all tin hat, to me that just marks you out as part of the problem.
Unfortunately many share your views but i think many are also in your exact same position, kids? grand kids? i doubt it it would surprise me and probably make me feel more sorry for you than i already do. The world is moving on without you, slowly those with your views are starting to become the minority, you find the smarter the person the quicker they change. Some wont ever change because they got a fall back, if they read pure scientific evidence from the best sources they console themselves with looking around for (what normally turns out to be a fairly obscure or discredited source) 'evidence' to support their case.
Others realize that what they did 15-20 years ago was based on ignorance, much like doctors in the 50 and 60's giving people cigarettes for nerves. The effects were not understood so its reasonable that people did the wrong thing, but when clear evidence came out to show smoking was seriously bad for you, you ended up with roughly 3 types. Those that would not believe it, they thought it was simply another exercise to extract tax etc, and to be fair the governments did and still do take advantage of this.
But the main reason the continued to smoke was because of the belief no one could tell them what to do, the rules and consequences didnt apply to them. This would of been ok had they smoked at home and not in bars etc, in those places people who chose not to smoke were forced to inhale the toxins, its interesting that every single one of these people have the exact same attitude...I f you dont want to smoke then go some place else, they feel they have the right to smoke in the bar and the non smokers should move, but that does not take into account those serving them that may not smoke.
Equally it dosnt take into account others rights to not have their health affected by the selfish actions of others.
Type of the smoking group, modified their behavior they became aware it was bad for them, but either because of addiction or the acceptance of the risk, they continued to smoke. This is of course their right. On the whole however they didnt go into denial or smoke in restaurants at tables with people eating, they went outside or smoked at home.
Then you got type 3, they simply gave up, accepted the facts and decided the risk didnt outweigh the pleasure. What might interest you is the fact i smoke, i havnt smoked for long but i do in fact smoke. I smoke alone and in one place and one place only, yes i know the risks yes i accept them. What i do dosnt affect anyone but me and those close to me if i should roll the dice and get sick from it.
The same thing, actually the exact same thing applies to environmental issues, same kind of types of people but the ramifications affect more people and are far more dangerous down the line, see you think i am young and stupid and to some extent that may apply. But i am upto date on both sides of the environmental arguments, i am fact based science lead so i take time to convince. I dont look for things to support my view i take a neutral view until i have enough evidence to weigh up the case, then i decide which side i am on.
Take coolant, its often quoted 1 gallon of antifreeze in an aquifer will seriously taint 1 million gallons of ground water, actually this figure is wrong and should never have been used, the amounts are lower by a large margin. But what do you think when you find out that a old common practice like dust control, actually is a problem to the environment? Do you accept the science and stop or does arrogance prevent you from accepting that past behavior was wrong?
You dont have to answer any of this as its mostly rhetorical, most people are well aware where your world view would sit, and there you have the main problem. People see through it all, some people are easy to weigh up and others are not so easy, you wouldnt need to give an opinion on most topics of the world or environment or even political views. Far from being unique you fall into that really predictable group, ad as i have said many times before, thats ok. Those who will try and sort things out already know what and who they are up against.
If you had longer on the planet then it might be worth trying to change your view or doing something about it, but its actually more effective just to factor in the minority of people with similar views and not waste the time. Oh and yes birds of a feather and all that, mean you likely think your in the main crowd or one of the majority. But your views are not with the majority and day by day your numbers get smaller.
Mr T is seen as a bad guy on the whole, but thats pretty silly. Hes somewhat normal with a few skewed values that a reasonable person would expect. His views on the environment and climate change ar5e wrong, and its interesting to see so many Americans standing up and supporting Paris, that dosnt mean he is wrong on everything. Actually some of it i agree with, despite having met him twice before he became president while he was in Scotland, on a personal level i didnt like him as a person, but he has some merits going for him. Infact he is like most people, he has some good bits and some bad bits.
You asked a question at the start and asked for opinions from people with chemical experience, you dismiss alot of what i said or didnt read it properly, then Gophert who has industrial experience of it told you the same thing and you except it. Now what do you think that says on a wider level? Again dont answer i wont see it.
Gophert expect a U2U in a few weeks i have a slightly strange question on antifreeze, its unlikely its in the books lol. Also i checked your pricing against UK prices, we use a slightly different price model, mostly i think its because your barrels are 55 gallons? is that correct? We tend to use 210 or a odd 220 ltr barrel except the metal type which works out at 46 UK gallons. Contrary to popular belief it has nothing to do from when we switched from imperial to metric, the odd sizes are more to do with regs on weight limits and working conditions, something we got stuck with from the EU. Same as dry weight we went from 52lb to 25Kg then 20Kg. exception being cement used to be around 100lb i think (values in the literature differ). Odd that potatoes where sold in sacks always as 52lb, but you actually paid for 50lb. I need to find a ref for that as its just a factoid that stuck ages ago and i cant remember where i saw it.
Do you? 
