Used antifreeze (Ethylene Glycol Base) processing. Anyone know much about it?

[tcmtech]

hows that, "Arctic Ice disappearing" and "no more snow" thing working out? I see records for both being totally smashed!
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...ssing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-in

That's where so many are finding reason to be skeptical. Too many of the claimed 100% guaranteed predictions have utterly failed to hold their water in too many areas now. I for one cannot faith based back a agenda that continues to fail to produce confirmable results anywhere close to what they claimed, and many barely meeting estimated values they should have met if we humans never had existed in the here and now, timelines that its own proponents screamed their heads off would happen.

I know the climate is changing. I will never deny that being I know full well this is dynamic living and evolving planet and I also know we humans carry a widely varying range of influences for both good and bad in countless ways too.

The problem I have is with the never ceasing claims that everything is worse than ever before everywhere all the time and getting even worse faster and it's 100% our fault. No it's not. We are not as big as we think we are and we carry a huge positive counterbalance influence that cancels out much of our perceived to be negatives and the positive side is slowly growing while our collective negative is shrinking for it.

Some places are bad and some are getting worse (local politics and subcultures too often have far more to do with that than anything else) but they do not represent the whole of us and our actions everywhere. Just the same as all of our hard learned lessons and work we have done to fix the things we have done wrong are not to be discounted and ignored as if they never happened either.

We are learning and evolving to try and make ourselves better and mistakes are going to happen, because we have limited factual knowledge and experience plus vastly differing opinions on why something should or should not be done, in most every new endeavor we take on in our world. So if that mentality and realization is denial of our place and understandings and actions then I am all too happy to be a denier!

 

[large_ghostman]

This isnt about climate change, lets be clear on that. Climate change is past the point you can recover, the main issue is very much like a bacterial culture. You get a lag growth phase then a steep phase of growth then population crash as the culture becomes to big for the resources available. Population wise we are roughly around the sustainable peak part, but with the number of people on the planet the growth rate is now phenomenal.

Dosnt mean we shouldnt try and limit the harm we cause, but dont think this is a situation with a fix. The aim is learning to live with it and adapt, at the same time trying to not make a bad situation worse. This is more to do with being responsible and not just go around wasting and polluting. Tyre's actually can be burnt safely but not in a normal burner, power stations with scrubbers and high temps use them as a good fuel source, and it takes care of a waste product.

Cant comment on a home made boiler i havnt seen, but highly skeptical its something that could be built properly at home, especially if you build them with out building in protection etc. And as this thread shows, its unlikely something like environmental issues are that high on your list.

The thread is about recovery of EG from waste coolant, the rest is a discussion on why its not practical or wise to do so. TC you throw around you tube videos and stats backed up by really nonsense sources, this is what i said you would do, its what everyone in your type does. Go look back in renewable s, i have posted papers from nature and equally fake news type publications, but then again its hard to find something to beat the high standard of you tube.

In case your not aware, i offered a few time to grab papers for people, so using google scholar and not google you tube or wikipedia, go find a journal recognized in the top 100 journals find a paper to back up what you said, post the abstract or the DOI number and i will gladly go get your paper. But you wont/cant because the top 100 journals wont have anything to back your claims on fracking or other things, i dont swap references for you tube videos, sorry but i like science and its a bit demeaning fighting a position basing its credibility on youtube! the ar4gument is lost before you start.

Now if you can come back with a real and credible source, thats different all together, then we have a debate and i will give you references. But little point doing that at the moment, slowly i have learnt that people who turn to you tube as science references, tend not to be able to understand a properly written scientific paper. Or put another way..... it wastes my time.

 

[tcmtech]

Cant comment on a home made boiler i havnt seen, but highly skeptical its something that could be built properly at home, especially if you build them with out building in protection etc. And as this thread shows, its unlikely something like environmental issues are that high on your list.

Regarding burning tires cleanly on the small scale, it's actually not that hard to do. The tricks are fairly simple. First they don't burn well as a single fuel as a whole piece but when mixed with a something like wood roe coal as chunks with a good dual air flow from both below the fire (High combustion temperature to get higher level pyrolysis working) and a good secondary air flow over the fire (to get the pyrolytic gases to burn off) is about all it takes.

Protection wise the designs I made have digital control over the draft control and includes system over temperature interlocks that start the pumps and circulate the water when it gets too high and if it continued to go up the furnace blower in the house wall so come on and dump the excess heat out of the system.

beyond that the boilers are a open no pressure design that can just harmlessly boil off their water if they get too hot.

They are not half assed redneck creations by any means. A lot of planning and testing went into both the physical designs plus control and safety aspects behind their function.

As for environmental issues, we don't have much for regulations on that sort of stuff in my state (no vehicular emissions testing whatsoever and likely never will) and home heating systems have no similar regulations I am aware of whatsoever, or at least zero enforcement if there are any.

Were right in the lower middle on Environmental quality at ~37.
Dead center on Eco friendly behavior practices at ~26.
#3 on giving the AGW/CC agenda the finger yet have a #2 position on air quality just the same!
and are ~47 on fuel usage.
Downside is due to our long cold winters we are tied for #3 on highest average energy usage. (Exactly why I burn used oil and this region of states says the AGW/CC is either scam or good for us.)

http://wallethub.com/edu/greenest-states/11987/

**broken link removed**
from here. **broken link removed**


Where I live our state and local governments are conservatively ran and thus typically have budget surpluses from year to year which means they aren't forever digging for new BS tax revenue schemes to implement to squeeze more from us over highly questionable regulations.

All things considered. The people are great, the air is clean, the water is good the climate in winter is horrible and our governments not full of greed driven regulation mongering half-wits.

 

[tcmtech]

Go look back in renewable s, i have posted papers from nature and equally fake news type publications, but then again its hard to find something to beat the high standard of you tube.

In case your not aware, i offered a few time to grab papers for people, so using google scholar and not google you tube or wikipedia, go find a journal recognized in the top 100 journals find a paper to back up what you said, post the abstract or the DOI number and i will gladly go get your paper. But you wont/cant because the top 100 journals wont have anything to back your claims on fracking or other things, i dont swap references for you tube videos, sorry but i like science and its a bit demeaning fighting a position basing its credibility on youtube! the ar4gument is lost before you start.

Yes, that's typical. Whenever someone's sources or own personal life experiences disagree with yours views they are to be deemed unworthy. No new news there.

So same back at you being too many of your sides come from leftist funded places that have been also found to be at times highly questionable in the honesty and unbiased views of who is doing them, hence the unending issues with your sides ever present scandal and scam revelations over your supposed higher level proponents and their claims that so far have always been proven to be crooked agenda pushing idealisms, like with the hockey stick graph and the 97% of scientist claims things being torn to pieces revealing that too often those sources people like you use are nowhere close to being what you say they are and stand for.

Simply put, as to date the skeptics side has not had that problem with being ratted out for manipulating data and falsifying reports. Yours has and way more than is to not be questioned for what's claimed to be at stake.

Mostly mine are just what a quick internet search brings up first. I don't feel the need to dig really really deep to find my supporting evidence from places, that do not easily show up on their own, and what I do bring to the table is usually fairly easy to backtrack to its original sources, if anyone wants to see them, since the skeptics side has very little trouble with the concepts of documenting and citing where their data and info comes from just so that it can be publicly and formally vetted for its accuracy if needed.

But little point doing that at the moment, slowly i have learnt that people who turn to you tube as science references, tend not to be able to understand a properly written scientific paper. Or put another way..... it wastes my time.

Seriously. you are aware of what a dismal track record your side has generated for it self just because of not doing exactly that with the stuff it built its highest claims on, right? You can say what you want but the reality is your sides top people and claims have been blown up and proven false multiple times over now and it does not matter what links I use that call them to argue otherwise would make you a solid denier to the reality of your own sides actions and claims in the very way you claim my side denies things we do not.

If you have solid documentation you feel is irrefutably true that,

1. shows al gores movies are not pseudoscience propaganda,
2. shows that manns hockey stick graph did not get shredded in legal courts for being manipulated to give a false representation of reality.
3 shows that cook was not in fact cooking his claims on how many scientist agree with the AGW/CC claims,
4. shows that the past and present comparison pictures of who we have improved our environment are not proof of vast and ongoing improvements in our environments.
5. shows that the climate trial judge did not infact call out the believers side for trying to pass off highly questionable evidence.

I will happily read them all and adjust my thinking accordingly.
However, To date that's just 5 of the major strikes against the validity and sincerity of your sides claims that need to be explained and answered for logically and rationally.

The thing is. I don't know what the ultimate truth is but I do know that when one side gets caught time after time pushing bad science and outright lies, that obviously support a highly questionable agenda, while claiming that everyone who sees very hard to ignore or refute flaws or gaping holes in their claims is a denier of reality, I have to take that in good faith it's a sign they are probably not playing a fair and honest game with a noble end in mind.

 

[large_ghostman]

What has al gore got to do with it? This isnt political in any way shape or form. I have written about EG in the environment and some of the toxins you might find in your coolant, the question was about how to extract the EG, i pointed out it isnt that simple as your going to use alot of energy taking water out, then mentioned a toxic heavy metal soup. Your reply was dismissive and hinted at being responsible with the waste didnt apply to you, as you said you have plenty of heavy metals already sitting around, why should you worry about any more.

You then boast/brag you use it for dust control, which indicates you think spreading EG or other toxins into the environment is ok. To some of us this isnt ok, as you say why should we pay to clean up your mess. Then you mention energy to get the water out wasnt a problem, simply burn some tires and job done. Again no mention of being responsible about burning something that by law has emission control, funny thing is some get upset over people building radio transmitters and complying to the law, well i get a bit like that when people break the law with toxic waste.

Al Gore aside as he isnt relevant to me, i told you where to find papers i have posted on things like climate change and plastics in Oceans, which is ironic. In that thread you state no way would you pay to clean up someone else mess, you also mention as long as your environment is ok thats fine with you. Well hate to break the bad news, but if you been spreading heavy metals around your place then your environment isnt ok around you.

Now i am sure you will protest its fine, so why not give the EPA a call and get them to come and take a look, i am sure they would advise you on anything that wasnt as it should be. Hmm i wont hold my breathe on that one. Oh nearly forgot the fracking fluid being ok, and yes if it stays where it is put then fine, the problem is there is concern of seepage into water tables. Apparently again this isnt a problem as you waded in the stuff, though i bet everything you own you wouldnt put 20ml in a pint of water and drink it on you tube .

NOTHING you have said has been backed by a decent source, so i havnt bothered using a reference. To those who know the science, your asking the equivalent of me providing proof a signal diode conducts in one direction. In other words your asking for proof that over unity dosnt work because you seen a you tube vid that proves it does, can you see my point? what your saying is so similar to those types of guys, your belief climate change and emission rules are a conspiracy and nothing more, is just like the arguments you get from OU guys who say the energy companies prevent the truth coming out on starship coils.

And yes i am serious, you really are that far out in your science on the topic, dont try and get it closed by making it political, keep to hard facts from credited sources. Climate and environment can all be discussed by sensible intelligent people without mentioning politics.

But it dosnt matter, you have had your answer, yes its possible but no its not worth it. Also its a bad idea for a amateur to handle and dispose of toxic waste correctly, they end up causing problems they cant fix. This then means people who know what they are doing have to fix it, or you need to take the toxic mess to the proper place to be disposed of, that alone makes your idea a non starter. Be careful ignoring advice you have been given, i am sure no one here wants a weekly update on your woes at having to sleep on the ex's sofa because the EPA did there job and prosecuted you....

If for no other reason, please spare us that.

 

[Grossel]

tcmtech and Litle ghostman, you guys should find yourselv a bar, get some beers and then discuss the case until morning rise. Then you post the final outcom on this forum - that I would like to see

 

[shortbus=]

<Mod edit: Please do not use someone's personal name without their permission. They may value their privacy.>

Then wouldn't it make sense not to use their personal initials as their screen name? Even someone as dumb as he claims I am can find it out. But then that may come down to me being older and having more life experience.

 

[shortbus=]

Now i am sure you will protest its fine, so why not give the EPA a call and get them to come and take a look, i am sure they would advise you on anything that wasnt as it should be. Hmm i wont hold my breathe on that one

Don't worry about that. I'm pretty sure when the local EPA office gets the Email, they will have him on their radar.

 

[shortbus=]

NOTHING you have said has been backed by a decent source, so i havnt bothered using a reference.

This has been one of my biggest problems with him. HE gets to decide what is or isn't a reliable source, they HAVE to align with his ideas to be reliable.

 

[tcmtech]

What has al gore got to do with it? This isnt political in any way shape or form. I have written about EG in the environment and some of the toxins you might find in your coolant, the question was about how to extract the EG, i pointed out it isnt that simple as your going to use alot of energy taking water out, then mentioned a toxic heavy metal soup. Your reply was dismissive and hinted at being responsible with the waste didnt apply to you, as you said you have plenty of heavy metals already sitting around, why should you worry about any more.

My point is that the AGW/CC cult has too many weak points and well proven false claims (crying wolf) on its side while proclaiming everyone who does not agree with them to be either in denial of reality or idiots or needs to showen what right by litteral totalitarian take over (as you have demonstrated repeatedly here yourself) yet that side has been the one doing the widest and deepest data collection based on real scientific analysis standards of the two.

As for my project here, again. It comes down to what process fits my application best and for me energy is cheap to the point of being an irrelevant issue. I have it accumulating faster than I presently use it and I have the capacity to set up systems to use more of it as I see fit. (~350 - 400 Megawatt hours thermal potential or about $40 - 50K US dollar residential electric value in my area.)

Same with the heavy metal concerns. There's no proof they will be present in any quantity that matters and thusly I have zero need to concern myself about any -what ifs- scenarios.

Also with my perceptions of what constitutes waste or pollution I view them purely by raw equation to natural numbers and nothing else. If I can dilute and disperse a known substance down to where it matches or is exceeded by the natural found values it's not a pollutant any more.
Which BTW, is the same basic concept and process that pollution remediation works with. Process it into it most inert state and then dilute that down to a level below what the laws require them to b to be considered safe. That can be done by either chemical reaction, biological remediation or raw dilution or combinations of all of them.

Believe me, I know my basic stuff when it comes to dealing with potentially toxic substances and how to quantify and remediate them which is why I find it to be a overblown non issue here.
I studied it in college classes years ago plus have had discussions and even been shown how its done first hand by EPA experts who were working directly in oversite positions with companies I worked for or people I know while they were doing cleanup jobs for businesses when dealing with problems from past or present incidences plus and above all I had it drilled into my head countless times in my never ending oil field training and safety review work while I was out there too.

Quantify what you actually have then remediate it to its least harmful state and then dispose of it accordingly. That's how real environmental protection works with real world problems.

You then boast/brag you use it for dust control, which indicates you think spreading EG or other toxins into the environment is ok. To some of us this isnt ok, as you say why should we pay to clean up your mess. Then you mention energy to get the water out wasnt a problem, simply burn some tires and job done. Again no mention of being responsible about burning something that by law has emission control, funny thing is some get upset over people building radio transmitters and complying to the law, well i get a bit like that when people break the law with toxic waste.

Yes, I know. If you find it a problem then you find a amicable solution to it that does not negatively affect my life and necessary wants and actions.

If you don't like me burning used oil to do what I need to do the way I see fit to do it then you send me a bank check for the cost of the electricity and I will use it for that and even give you a fully documented report with pictorial confirmations of everything to prove I used your money specifically for that.

Otherwise you just accept that I am on the far side of the world from you and live in a location where your concerns and laws don't apply to me.

Now if you think your wants and law should apply to me that fine. I think the most backward totalitarian soul crushing rules of governance from any other place in the world should be fair game to be applied to your life as well. Would you care to live your life rural North Korean style under say a middle eastern religious cult standards rule? Somebody there thinks you would be fine so, why not? I'll live by your rules and wants if you'll live by theirs!

Al Gore aside as he isnt relevant to me, i told you where to find papers i have posted on things like climate change and plastics in Oceans, which is ironic. In that thread you state no way would you pay to clean up someone else mess, you also mention as long as your environment is ok thats fine with you. Well hate to break the bad news, but if you been spreading heavy metals around your place then your environment isnt ok around you.

Yes, your concern you figure out how to do it and then the pay to fix it your way. I do the same with mine. Thats fair. You force me to pay of yours and I get to force you to pay for mine. Stalemate. You Invade, I defend. Best person wins.

How do you know that any heavy metals have been spread to any degree that breaks any rules? I don't so you certainly do not. Your wild imaginations don't determine my reality.

Now i am sure you will protest its fine, so why not give the EPA a call and get them to come and take a look, i am sure they would advise you on anything that wasnt as it should be. Hmm i wont hold my breathe on that one. Oh nearly forgot the fracking fluid being ok, and yes if it stays where it is put then fine, the problem is there is concern of seepage into water tables. Apparently again this isnt a problem as you waded in the stuff, though i bet everything you own you wouldnt put 20ml in a pint of water and drink it on you tube .

Why would I call about a non issue that does not exist? I'm not living under a totalitarian regime rule system where I need to get permission to do everything I want. What the EPA has turned into is not well liked here so I have even less want to bring them into my life over nothing.

BTW, I never once said that frack water was safe to drink. Neither is water mixed with jello, sand, soap and a bit of lawn and garden biocides but you can have direct skin exposure to them all mixed together for extended periods and not die from it but drinking it would mess you up pretty bad.

That's really what frack fluid is. One gallon of water (municipal or local lake or river) with 0 - 6 pounds of propants held is suspension with Guar gum gelling agents with a bit of surfactants to make its surface tension and viscosity low enough to pump easily and a few PPM of biocides to keep bacteria and microbes from growing in the Guar gum. (not so scary now that you know the recipe.)

NOTHING you have said has been backed by a decent source, so i havnt bothered using a reference. To those who know the science, your asking the equivalent of me providing proof a signal diode conducts in one direction. In other words your asking for proof that over unity dosnt work because you seen a you tube vid that proves it does, can you see my point? what your saying is so similar to those types of guys, your belief climate change and emission rules are a conspiracy and nothing more, is just like the arguments you get from OU guys who say the energy companies prevent the truth coming out on starship coils.

And yes i am serious, you really are that far out in your science on the topic, dont try and get it closed by making it political, keep to hard facts from credited sources. Climate and environment can all be discussed by sensible intelligent people without mentioning politics.

But it dosnt matter, you have had your answer, yes its possible but no its not worth it. Also its a bad idea for a amateur to handle and dispose of toxic waste correctly, they end up causing problems they cant fix. This then means people who know what they are doing have to fix it, or you need to take the toxic mess to the proper place to be disposed of, that alone makes your idea a non starter. Be careful ignoring advice you have been given, i am sure no one here wants a weekly update on your woes at having to sleep on the ex's sofa because the EPA did there job and prosecuted you....

If for no other reason, please spare us that.

Same exact view as seen from my side (the side that does not have a well known bad public level track record of its claims being built on proven lies and corruption.

That's the problem, however I'n not using straw man arguments and weak -what if- bases imaginations to justify my wants either. You are. I've given my links to that which I fond well enough fitting which of those links they have links to where their data comes from.
You so far have produced nothing whatsoever but empty talk and claims you have provable data which in formal debate rules tends to put the win on the side who actually brings something (anything vettable) to table beyond employee claims and denial against the other.

You say my links don't count. That's fine. Disprove the content they hold, since you say you can, or shut up about it and leave the thread because you know full well I am going to do what I want as I want any way whether your countries rules say I can or not.

BTW, rather old now but very relevant to this discussion.

EPA.
https://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B1F73F45AB3097E3852566110072B2D1

My state,

**broken link removed**

Since I am reprocessing it for reuse its not going on the ground or in the waterways or anywhere else which obeys their requirements.

Same with burning my used oil. I'm private and exempt from the commercial regulations.

My states rules and regs.
**broken link removed**

What I do falls under the private/DIY rulings which is pretty open on things given what units of measure I do and may ever work with at any single time.

https://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/pdf/33-24-05.pdf

Mostly, if I don't make a repeated public nuisance of myself they don't care what I do at my level.

 

[shortbus=]

"Never discharge any antifreeze into streams or other surface waters, storm sewer systems,
septic systems, or onto the ground." From your Antifreeze PDF page 2.

 

[shortbus=]

"Transporters hauling used oil must have a
valid State/EPA ID number and a ND Solid
WasteTransporter permit. Generators,
collection centers, and aggregation points
must use transporters with State/EPA ID
number and a ND Solid WasteTransporter
permit for shipping used oil off site "

"1. The heater burns only used oil that the
owner or operator generates, or used oil
received from household do-ityourselfers.
2. The heater is designer to have
maximum capacity of not more than
0.5 million BTU’s per hour "

Both above from your used oil PDF. I'm sure you are complying with both, do to what you have posted in this thread and else where.

 

[tcmtech]

tcmtech and Litle ghostman, you guys should find yourselv a bar, get some beers and then discuss the case until morning rise. Then you post the final outcom on this forum - that I would like to see

Unfortunately he's 17 so there's that weighting factor in all of this.

When I was his age I knew everything I knew 'for fact' too. Downside was those 'facts' got proven wrong by reality a bunch over the years which he's going to be up against in his future too. I don't know where he will go in life but given where I am now and what I believe now compared to how I believed very similarly to him and on the same subjects at that age he's going to get a lot of water poured on his fire along the way too.

 

[JonSea]

"Never discharge any antifreeze into streams or other surface waters, storm sewer systems,
septic systems, or onto the ground." From your Antifreeze PDF page 2.

Cats love the stuff too. It's deadly to them.

 

[tcmtech]

Both above from your used oil PDF. I'm sure you are complying with both, do to what you have posted in this thread and else where.

To the same levels and likely above most everyone else who burns used oil here does. They dont push enforcements so we don't make waves big enough to draw attention that would warrant their concerns. Just like vehicle emission regulations here. Every Time some local government officials start fussing over them they somehow never get reelected. Don't screw with the farmers and those who livelihoods depend on them here if you want to keep your government job.

That and operating at the private citizen level makes me exempt from the commercial level rules whether anyone agrees with it or not rather like the MSHA/OSHA related safety gear and related rules don't apply to the private person regarding what work they do for themselves.

BTW, Unlike most people I actually have a commercial driver's license with a HazMat endorsements which means I can legally transport more than 55 gallons of used oil at anyone time.

 

[tcmtech]

Cats love the stuff too. It's deadly to them.

Some cats do but most don't. I have several and its not an issue here, even with the dumb wild one that lives in the main shop.

 

[large_ghostman]

You miss the point every time, it isnt about what others do, or what you can get away with. Hell where i live i can get away with most things, but I wouldnt. This is about being responsible, you keep bringing up my age and dont realize this works against you. Yes i am 17 and yes i handle dangerous and toxic waste, the difference is i am responsible in my actions. I dont build my systems or practices around what others locally may or may not do.

I make sure i comply with the law and where practical i make sure I dont discharge anything i dont have too. An example is a professional chemistry fume cupboard, designed to protect the operator from dangerous fumes etc, some see it simply as protection and you see you tube full of videos where Nitrogen Oxides in thick brown clouds are taken away by the fume hood and discharged into the atmosphere. Stupidity to me, i dont see why most dont do what I and others do, we put a scrubber bottle on the end of the system and neutralize the NOx.

We use our hoods as a last back stop if things go wrong, not as a means to dispose of toxic gas into the air. Call it a mindset if you want, mine is about prevention and clearly yours is about what you can get away with. Do you filter or better still centrifuge your oil before burning? Burns better and cleaner, if your clever you can actually use the toxic waste it produces.....If your clever.

 

[tcmtech]

You miss the point every time, it isnt about what others do, or what you can get away with. Hell where i live i can get away with most things, but I wouldnt. This is about being responsible, you keep bringing up my age and dont realize this works against you. Yes i am 17 and yes i handle dangerous and toxic waste, the difference is i am responsible in my actions. I dont build my systems or practices around what others locally may or may not do.

And you are missing mine. I'm not a deliberate gross polluter either. But I don't concern myself with incidental quantities of things that are easily and typically naturally self remediating within a reasonable time scales. It goes with being realistic about what quantity of what constitutes being below or above a lower toxicity limit for a given situation.

Purposely dumping 1000's of gallons of antifreeze or used oil in the environment without a proper remediation plan and process in order is bad but loosing a gallon to two here or there and cleaning it up by diluting it with common media isn't.

I make sure i comply with the law and where practical i make sure I dont discharge anything i dont have too. An example is a professional chemistry fume cupboard, designed to protect the operator from dangerous fumes etc, some see it simply as protection and you see you tube full of videos where Nitrogen Oxides in thick brown clouds are taken away by the fume hood and discharged into the atmosphere. Stupidity to me, i dont see why most dont do what I and others do, we put a scrubber bottle on the end of the system and neutralize the NOx.

I'm the same within reason but unfortunately we now have a lot of nanny state federal level regulations that do nothing legitimately good for anyone other than take money from them to fund screwed up government bureaucracy. That I am against and so is the majority of those who live where I do and even run our local governments. That's why we have very low enforcement of some rules that are tightly enforced in other regions of our country.

In our area some rules just don't apply to us because we do not break the threshold of toxicity or resource overuse they are made to prevent being high enough to matter here, like water usage for instance. Yes, restricting ones daily water usage when you live in a desert or large population area, or both, that has a limited water resource to work with is very necessary. But not when you live in a low population density region that has a natural overabundance of the stuff.

I have a friend who lives in a older small town that has outdated and overloaded water supply systems and he thinks its wrong that I pump 10's of thousands of gallons of water a day when I water my yard in a dry year. Its nuts and waitefull, he says. Nope. Not for me because I have a active stream on my property and I can take that much water from it legally because its inconsequential compared to what flows through it in 24 hours.

We use our hoods as a last back stop if things go wrong, not as a means to dispose of toxic gas into the air. Call it a mindset if you want, mine is about prevention and clearly yours is about what you can get away with. Do you filter or better still centrifuge your oil before burning? Burns better and cleaner, if your clever you can actually use the toxic waste it produces.....If your clever.

Again, not really. I do what I can to deal with my waste within practical reason by knowing whats reasonable to do with it. Which here burning ones garbage is allowable when you live outside city limits, unless there is burn ban on, and even then if handled and done properly to keep stray burning embers and bits contained it's still not an issue.

That's where pretty much all of my non metallic waste goes and I have my burning processes set up to achieve maximum reasonable reductions of material by burning hot and fast just like regulations say to do. In fact when I used to burn wood and other things in my boilers that's where it all went because they are designed to burn with the hottest fire possible.

So hot that making its own ash into solid glassy stone like clinker chunks was normal an expected operation. Wood + coal + household garbage + ocasional tire and plastics chunks with the proper air flows burns extremely hot and clean!

So, no. Contrary to how some of you want to paint me, I don't just go throwing my garbage and whatever else all over the countryside because I don't care. I do care. But I don't sweat the small stuff if I don't have to and around here we really don't have to.

 

[JonSea]

A former coworker had a file full of weasel words - those words you use to bend the truth. When I see tcmtech's replies here, all I see are weasel words.

"I don't pollute within practical limits."

"I don't dispose of anything on the ground above naturally occuring levels."

There are many more examples. Basically a lot of "I don't have to follow the rules because...."

This is an observation. Not an attack and not subject to debate. The weasel words are plain to see.

 

[tcmtech]

A former coworker had a file full of weasel words - those words you use to bend the truth. When I see tcmtech's replies here, all I see are weasel words.

"I don't pollute within practical limits."

"I don't dispose of anything on the ground above naturally occuring levels."

There are many more examples. Basically a lot of "I don't have to follow the rules because...."

This is an observation. Not an attack and not subject to debate. The weasel words are plain to see.

So you using your own interpretations and definitions of wording is proof of what regarding my actions?

Do you strictly and unwaveringly obey every law that applies to you, even if they may not actually apply to you at all times and or if you know they ones are simply not enforced at your level of actions, just in case? I have my doubts your law abiding life is any better than mine if dug into deep enough.

My point is and has been all along in this thread that if knowing how the basic science behind the regulations and enforcements (if their are any) works and how they are set is 'weasel words' then yes I use 'weasel words' and actions to stay inside the laws as they are defined and enforced a lot, including when I break a law that's not enforced for anything but the most heinous of offences.