Remember me
▼ Content

Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..



Page 2 of 2<12
20-04-2022 13:29
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
Sealover/Im a BM Wrote
Wastewater Treatment Redox Sequence OPPOSITE of a Septic Tank.

A septic tank operates biogeochemically in the exact OPPOSITE manner as the modern wastewaster treatment systems.

A septic tank starts with ANAEROBIC decomposition. Lots of chemical reduction reactions generated by organic carbon oxidation under low oxygen conditions.

The effluent from a septic tank then flows into AEROBIC conditions. Lots of chemical oxidation reactions from the reduced metabolic products of anaerobiosis. No kind of "fish food" then flows out to surface waters.

In between advanced degree programs, I had a one-year gig as a wastewater chemist for Exxon. NOT AT ALL LIKE A SEPTIC TANK.

Let me tell you about it.

Step one is to provide AEROBIC conditions. Mix in as much oxygen as possible.

Burn up the organic matter under AEROBIC conditions, with OXIDATION reactions controlling the chemical output. Burn up all the organic nitrogen and all the ammonium to nitrate.

Step two, create ANAEROBIC conditions so that nitrate reducing bacteria can ensure there is no nitrate, and therefore no nitrogen fertilizer, in effluent to surface waters.

One time, the ecology of the system got really messed up. A badly timed pulse of toxic input killed off the nitrificans bacteria. The nitrosomonas were still alive and well. So, ammonia was being oxidized to NITRITE, but there was nobody left alive to oxidize the NITRITE to NITRATE.

As far as effluent to surface water goes, NITRITE is much much much worse than nitrate.

So, given the reality that wastewater treatment depends on the cultivation and nurturing of nitrate reducing bacteria, they had to buy the nitrosomonas culture and reinnoculate the system.

To Exxon's credit, they were completely honest about the incident. Nitrite in the river water was NOT COOL. They did the right thing and didn't lie about it.


Thank you for posting something that is true.I have installed many septic tank systems and also worked on Biocycles on mine sites.The biocycles are self container precast units and are just excavated and installed as a complete unit and I connect the drainage system direct to the inlet.The outlet is a pumped fitting of 25mm-40mm and goes to reticulation in the gardens around the campsite.A small air pump on the lid forces low pressure air through matting in to the system and speeds up the AEROBIC action.I am not familiar with ANAEROBIC action.I did a lot of bush style water treatment in the Aussie army as a field engineer and if effluent is pushed through a course sand filter then a fine sand filter and sprayed in the air in direct sunlight for long enough it will be potable.If not we had junk that could be added to stop making the Infantry sick but it might not taste good.I had nothing to do with that part as if we make a regiment of grunts poo their pants we would get a hundred or so bayonets in the neck a bit Alamo style.About 30 years ago when it was realised that new inground sewerage systems would not be operational quick enough a twin system of leach drains was bought in to play.The effluent line would have a diverter installed so the leach drains could be annually switched over.I have dug out old systems that have been decommissioned and have had no liquid in for over 12 months and there is just a small amount of grey coloured powder in the whole system as nature has done its job.Last comment Sealover/Im a BM.Have more faith in nature.Where I live is perfect.I am not seeing all the problems you have been indoctrinated with.
Edited on 20-04-2022 13:30
20-04-2022 15:49
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
The problem with biogeoclimatologist is that the greatly embellish the dangers and hazards. There is a level of tolerance to most everything. Too much of pretty much everything can be deadly. Fortunately, that almost never happens. You pretty much have to be trying to kill something off. But, the biogeoclimatologist will pull a couple of samples, measure the levels, and if it's slightly above what was measured previously, it's dangerous, a catastrophe, a crisis, that must be corrected immediately. They totally ignore that nature has been doing some catastrophic things as well, and life goes on.

Back before mankind found a use for oil, and started drilling, pumping out of the ground. Oil just seeped up to the surface, forming pool of nasty, brownish-black goo. Which of cause found its way into rivers, lakes, streams. Almost all the deadly crap chemicals we use, exist in nature, sometimes in large quantities, which we mine, and refine. Sure, concentrated, most things are deadly, but spilling a little does little harm.
20-04-2022 20:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...deleted severely damaged quoting...
sealover wrote:
Wastewater Treatment Redox Sequence OPPOSITE of a Septic Tank.

And now for another example of your idiocy.
sealover wrote:
A septic tank operates biogeochemically in the exact OPPOSITE manner as the modern wastewaster treatment systems.

Nope. Same bacteria. Same process.
sealover wrote:
A septic tank starts with ANAEROBIC decomposition. Lots of chemical reduction reactions generated by organic carbon oxidation under low oxygen conditions.

Carbon is not organic.
sealover wrote:
The effluent from a septic tank then flows into AEROBIC conditions. Lots of chemical oxidation reactions from the reduced metabolic products of anaerobiosis. No kind of "fish food" then flows out to surface waters.

Septic drain fields do not flow to any fish.
sealover wrote:
In between advanced degree programs, I had a one-year gig as a wastewater chemist for Exxon. NOT AT ALL LIKE A SEPTIC TANK.

You are a nothing. You are illiterate in chemistry and biology.
sealover wrote:
Let me tell you about it.

Another one of your made up anecdotes...just to show how little you know.
sealover wrote:
Step one is to provide AEROBIC conditions. Mix in as much oxygen as possible.

Not done in a septic system nor a wastewater treatment plant.
sealover wrote:
Burn up the organic matter under AEROBIC conditions, with OXIDATION reactions controlling the chemical output. Burn up all the organic nitrogen and all the ammonium to nitrate.

No such chemicals.
sealover wrote:
Step two, create ANAEROBIC conditions so that nitrate reducing bacteria can ensure there is no nitrate, and therefore no nitrogen fertilizer, in effluent to surface waters.

No such chemicals.
sealover wrote:
One time, the ecology of the system got really messed up. A badly timed pulse of toxic input killed off the nitrificans bacteria. The nitrosomonas were still alive and well. So, ammonia was being oxidized to NITRITE, but there was nobody left alive to oxidize the NITRITE to NITRATE.

No such chemicals, other than ammonia. Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
As far as effluent to surface water goes, NITRITE is much much much worse than nitrate.

No such chemicals.
sealover wrote:
So, given the reality that wastewater treatment depends on the cultivation and nurturing of nitrate reducing bacteria, they had to buy the nitrosomonas culture and reinnoculate the system.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
To Exxon's credit, they were completely honest about the incident. Nitrite in the river water was NOT COOL. They did the right thing and didn't lie about it.

No such chemicals.

Your story is hooey. You made it up, just like you made up all your buzzwords.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-04-2022 20:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Working for the World's Largest Oil Company.

Maybe as a clerk...
sealover wrote:
Rush Limbaugh and Exxon both LOVED sealover's work.

You don't get to speak for the dead. You don't get to speak for Exxon either. Omnisicience fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Sealover helped Exxon with a short term fix in an emergency.

Your story is made up, dude.
sealover wrote:
The nitrate concentrations in the wastewater effluent were through the roof.

No such chemical.
sealover wrote:
There would be a time delay before the new innoculum would arrive to restore the population of nitrobacter denitrificans.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Meanwhile there were dangerously high levels of nitrite.

No such chemical.
sealover wrote:
But you know what? Nitrosomonas can actually take back the nitrite they generated, given the right conditions, a little organic carbon, and a little molybdenum. They started turning nitrite into ammonium.

Carbon isn't organic. No such chemicals. Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Exxon loves me. Why do you guys hate me?

You don't get to speak for Exxon. Omniscience fallacy.

No one here hates you. You are just begin paranoid.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-04-2022 20:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Im a BM wrote:
Salta, perrito! Salta!

Tu amo te manda saltar, y tienes que obedecer.

Ademas, no eres capaz de resistir la tentacion.

Buen provecho!



Spamming in a foreign language is still spam.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-04-2022 20:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...deleted severely damaged quoting...
sealover wrote:
From the guy who got Exxon out of a tight spot

Lie.
sealover wrote:
Call me a "liar" if you want.

Okay. You're a liar.
sealover wrote:
It doesn't trigger any insecurities.

Lie. QED
sealover wrote:
So, between advanced degrees programs in biogeochemistry I did a one year gig as a wastewater chemist for Exxon.

Well, half the job was wastewater chemistry analysis, and methods updates.

The other half was to implement the basic QA/QC program for the hydrocarbon lab.

I took advantage of the opportunity.

Health and safety improvements fell under the mandate of QA/QC.

You are illiterate in chemistry. Made up story. Lie.
sealover wrote:
One of the diesel fuel tests involved use of toluene. It emitted toluene vapor directly into the air being breathed by the technician. One guy there actually died of liver cancer, but they couldn't prove that the toluene caused it.

Toluene doesn't cause cancer.
sealover wrote:
So, using the QA/QC mandate and budget, the toluene vapors from that test got piped away to a fume hood to be vented to the atmosphere.

Fume hoods don't destroy toluene, and it's very dangerous to use a fume hood here.
sealover wrote:
So many people there thanked me for making the air better to breathe...

You didn't.
sealover wrote:
There was also a basic oil and grease test that had to be done on all treated wastewater effluent.

None required. Oil and grease arriving in a wastewater treatment plant is digested along with everything else.
sealover wrote:
It involved the use of freon, an ozone destroyer.

Freon is incapable of destroying ozone. No reaction takes place. It is not possible to destroy the ozone layer, even if we wanted to. You are still ignoring the Chapman cycle.
sealover wrote:
The way everyone at Exxon ever did the test before, they simply allowed the freon to vent to the atmosphere, and then weigh the oil and grease extracted by it. It was a LOT of freon.

So what? Freon doesn't do anything. It's basically inert material, although it will burn.
sealover wrote:
So, sealover set up the glassware for a water-cooled distillation apparatus.

Sure ya did. Just like the rest of the story you made up.
sealover wrote:
The freon could then be recaptured and recycled for reuse in the oil and grease test. This saved MONEY as well as a little relief for the ozone layer.

Freon is not capable of destroying the ozone layer. It is not possible to destroy the ozone layer, even if we wanted to. You are AGAIN ignoring the Chapman cycle.
sealover wrote:
Word got around and other Exxon refineries adopted the practice.

Why tell this story of a real thing that happened in the real world?

You are telling this story to puff yourself up. You are a nothing.
sealover wrote:
Well, imagine if someone came to this website and proposed that maybe a change should be made to the system so that technicians don't have to breathe toluene vapor.

Low concentrations are not harmful. Personnel are not allowed in high concentration environments without protective gear which must include self contained breathing apparatus.
sealover wrote:
Surely they would be ATTACKED. After all, everyone knows that toluene is just as harmless as lead or radon.

Lead and radon are harmless. Toluene is flammable and potentially explosive. Don't eat or drink them (radon is a gas, and harmless).
sealover wrote:
It would be WRONG to WASTE MONEY piping the toluene away from the apparatus to a fume hood where nobody has to breathe it.

Very dangerous. Toluene is potentially explosive. Fume hoods do not destroy toluene.
sealover wrote:
Imagine if someone came to this website and proposed that maybe a change should be made to the system so that freon is recycled rather than vented to the atmosphere during the standard oil and grease test.

Feel free to vent freon. It does not react with ozone. It is not possible to destroy the ozone layer.
sealover wrote:
Goddamn liberal democrats want to ruin EVERYTHING!

Correct. The only thing you have correct in this entire post.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Trihalomethanes - Chlorine Disinfection By Products21-04-2022 05:07
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Trihalomethanes - Chlorine Disinfection By Products

As this thread has already deviated into wastewater treatment.

At least one of the posts implied that chlorine was used in wastewater treatment.

The problem with chlorine, and why its use in wastewater treatment has largely discontinued, was the unanticipated adverse environmental and public health impacts of TRIHALOMETHANES generated by chlorine treatment.

Chlorine is still widely used to disinfect drinking water, hypochlorite, aminochlor, etc. TRIHALOMETHANES generated are considered to be a big problem.

In the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, a concerted effort is being made to minimize the export of dissolved organic carbon from drained peatlands into surface waters used as source of drinking water.

The less organic carbon in the input water, the fewer trihalomethanes generated during chlorine disinfection of drinking water supplies.

Folks who know what trihalomethanes are might want to ask more about how to mitigate them.

Trihalomethanes - Chlorine Disinfection By Products
21-04-2022 05:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Trihalomethanes - Chlorine Disinfection By Products

As this thread has already deviated into wastewater treatment.

At least one of the posts implied that chlorine was used in wastewater treatment.

It is not implied. It is said. I said it. Chlorine is used in wastewater treatment.
sealover wrote:
The problem with chlorine, and why its use in wastewater treatment has largely discontinued,

It hasn't been discontinued.
sealover wrote:
was the unanticipated adverse environmental and public health impacts of TRIHALOMETHANES generated by chlorine treatment.

That is adding too much chlorine, and is a waste of chlorine.
sealover wrote:
Chlorine is still widely used to disinfect drinking water, hypochlorite, aminochlor, etc. TRIHALOMETHANES generated are considered to be a big problem.

Only if you try to chlorinate a swamp.
sealover wrote:
In the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, a concerted effort is being made to minimize the export of dissolved organic carbon

Carbon isn't organic.
sealover wrote:
from drained peatlands into surface waters used as source of drinking water.

Nah. The SDTC is stupid enough to get it's drinking water from a SWAMP!
sealover wrote:
The less organic carbon in the input water,

Carbon isn't organic.
sealover wrote:
the fewer trihalomethanes generated during chlorine disinfection of drinking water supplies.

Don't dump chlorine in a swamp.
sealover wrote:
Folks who know what trihalomethanes are might want to ask more about how to mitigate them.

No need. Don't dump chlorine in a swamp.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: This IS science fiction.26-04-2022 23:40
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
This IS science fiction.

Methane oxidizing bacteria, the ones that use oxygen for oxidant, have been around for at LEAST 2000 million years.

If they were capable of suddenly mutating into something that could feed on something else, they would have done so a long, long time ago.

They are VERY selective about what they feed on.

Once the methane runs out, they DO just die and vanish.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HarveyH55 wrote:

Not everything turns out well, when scaled up. All those biogeocultivated bacteria are going to feed, replicate and spread. They aren't that selective about what they feed on either. They also tend to mutate, to better adapt to the food and environment. Once their fracking task is complete, they just don't die and vanish. I don't have a lot of faith in biogeogenetic engineering either.
27-04-2022 01:53
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
sealover wrote:
This IS science fiction.

Methane oxidizing bacteria, the ones that use oxygen for oxidant, have been around for at LEAST 2000 million years.

If they were capable of suddenly mutating into something that could feed on something else, they would have done so a long, long time ago.

They are VERY selective about what they feed on.

Once the methane runs out, they DO just die and vanish.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HarveyH55 wrote:

Not everything turns out well, when scaled up. All those biogeocultivated bacteria are going to feed, replicate and spread. They aren't that selective about what they feed on either. They also tend to mutate, to better adapt to the food and environment. Once their fracking task is complete, they just don't die and vanish. I don't have a lot of faith in biogeogenetic engineering either.


Do you have bacteria samples, millions of years old? Mutation, is how bacteria diversify and survive. I they were only able to make perfect copies, it would only take one event to kill them all. Every living things has some means to adapt to the environment, so that at least a few might survive. Those that can't adapt, cease to exist.
27-04-2022 10:54
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Working for the World's Largest Oil Company.

Maybe as a clerk...
sealover wrote:
Rush Limbaugh and Exxon both LOVED sealover's work.

You don't get to speak for the dead. You don't get to speak for Exxon either. Omnisicience fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Sealover helped Exxon with a short term fix in an emergency.

Your story is made up, dude.
sealover wrote:
The nitrate concentrations in the wastewater effluent were through the roof.

No such chemical.
sealover wrote:
There would be a time delay before the new innoculum would arrive to restore the population of nitrobacter denitrificans.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Meanwhile there were dangerously high levels of nitrite.

No such chemical.
sealover wrote:
But you know what? Nitrosomonas can actually take back the nitrite they generated, given the right conditions, a little organic carbon, and a little molybdenum. They started turning nitrite into ammonium.

Carbon isn't organic. No such chemicals. Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Exxon loves me. Why do you guys hate me?

You don't get to speak for Exxon. Omniscience fallacy.

No one here hates you. You are just begin paranoid.


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard for nitrate in drinking water is 10 milligrams of nitrate (measured as nitrogen) per liter of drinking water (mg/L). * Drinking water with levels of nitrate at or below 10 mg/L is considered safe for everyone.

Look what I copied and pasted.Yay me


duncan61
27-04-2022 10:54
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Working for the World's Largest Oil Company.

Maybe as a clerk...
sealover wrote:
Rush Limbaugh and Exxon both LOVED sealover's work.

You don't get to speak for the dead. You don't get to speak for Exxon either. Omnisicience fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Sealover helped Exxon with a short term fix in an emergency.

Your story is made up, dude.
sealover wrote:
The nitrate concentrations in the wastewater effluent were through the roof.

No such chemical.
sealover wrote:
There would be a time delay before the new innoculum would arrive to restore the population of nitrobacter denitrificans.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Meanwhile there were dangerously high levels of nitrite.

No such chemical.
sealover wrote:
But you know what? Nitrosomonas can actually take back the nitrite they generated, given the right conditions, a little organic carbon, and a little molybdenum. They started turning nitrite into ammonium.

Carbon isn't organic. No such chemicals. Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Exxon loves me. Why do you guys hate me?

You don't get to speak for Exxon. Omniscience fallacy.

No one here hates you. You are just begin paranoid.


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard for nitrate in drinking water is 10 milligrams of nitrate (measured as nitrogen) per liter of drinking water (mg/L). * Drinking water with levels of nitrate at or below 10 mg/L is considered safe for everyone.

Look what I copied and pasted.Yay me


duncan61
27-04-2022 18:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
This IS science fiction.

Methane oxidizing bacteria, the ones that use oxygen for oxidant, have been around for at LEAST 2000 million years.


How do you know? Were you there?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-04-2022 18:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
HarveyH55 wrote:
sealover wrote:
This IS science fiction.

Methane oxidizing bacteria, the ones that use oxygen for oxidant, have been around for at LEAST 2000 million years.

If they were capable of suddenly mutating into something that could feed on something else, they would have done so a long, long time ago.

They are VERY selective about what they feed on.

Once the methane runs out, they DO just die and vanish.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HarveyH55 wrote:

Not everything turns out well, when scaled up. All those biogeocultivated bacteria are going to feed, replicate and spread. They aren't that selective about what they feed on either. They also tend to mutate, to better adapt to the food and environment. Once their fracking task is complete, they just don't die and vanish. I don't have a lot of faith in biogeogenetic engineering either.


Do you have bacteria samples, millions of years old? Mutation, is how bacteria diversify and survive. I they were only able to make perfect copies, it would only take one event to kill them all. Every living things has some means to adapt to the environment, so that at least a few might survive. Those that can't adapt, cease to exist.

Sorry, dude. The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. Adaption is not required for an organism to exist.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-04-2022 20:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
Into the Night wrote:Sorry, dude. The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. Adaption is not required for an organism to exist.

How, exactly, does an organism exist that is not adapted to its environment?

Can you imagine how greatly we can decrease space travel if we don't need space suits or other means of adaptation? You might be onto a gold mine. I'm all in.
27-04-2022 21:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Sorry, dude. The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. Adaption is not required for an organism to exist.

How, exactly, does an organism exist that is not adapted to its environment?

Can you imagine how greatly we can decrease space travel if we don't need space suits or other means of adaptation? You might be onto a gold mine. I'm all in.


Alligators, for example, like swampy areas, being amphibians. Most alligators are black to gray, and blend in pretty well to dim lighting. Albino alligators (yes, they do exist) don't blend in at all, but they still live quite happily in the swamp with the rest of them.

Obviously, the albino alligator doesn't bother to adapt by mutating. It's behavior is no different from any other alligator.

Space travel doesn't actually require space suits (although they are handy!). All it requires is a vehicle capable of traveling through space. No different than building a ship to cross a sea.
None of these vehicles can mutate. They are not living things. None of these are examples of the Theory of Natural Selection (Darwin's theory).

The Theory of Natural Selection is based on a paradox, and that, in and of itself, is sufficient for it to fail the internal consistency check.

If Natural Selection is True, it must always be True. If so, how do variations get started to Select from??

Because it fails the internal consistency check, this 'theory' actually isn't a theory at all. It's a fallacy. It's irrational. Arguing both sides of any paradox is irrational.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 27-04-2022 21:03
RE: Nitrite versus Nitrate - VERY different "chemicals"27-04-2022 23:23
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
Nitrite versus Nitrate - VERY different chemicals.

The 10 mg per liter USEPA standard for drinking water is for NITRATE.

The release that Exxon had to report was NITRITE.

Check the drinking water standard for NITRITE rather than NITRATE.

There must be something very different about the two "chemicals".

"Chemical" is in quotation marks because there is only one genius who understands words well enough to know what a chemical really is.

Nitrate, NO3-, is a monovalent oxyanion composed of nitrogen and oxygen.

Nitrite, NO2-, is a monovalent oxyanion, composed of nitrogen and one less oxygen.

May the super genius invoke "valence electrons" to refute these facts.

NitrATE is only toxic at high concentrations. Even then, only toxic because some of it gets transformed to nitrITE in the low oxygen, organic carbon rich guts.

NitrITE is toxic at far lower concentrations. Look up the USEPA drinking water standard for proof. But use the word "nitrite", like the Exxon thing was about.

And what helped mitigate the discharge was to enable the existing treatment pond ecology to operate WITHOUT the organism that transforms NITRITE into nitrogen gas.

Instead, carbohydrate and molybdenum were added to enable the surviving bacteria that turned the nitrate into nitrite to do something else.

They had no nitrate left to work with anyway.

And the organic carbon was all burned up in the aerobic step of the process

Using the freshly added organic carbon as their energy, these same bacteria turned the nitrite they made into ammonium.

Ammonium isn't so great in a treated wastewater discharge, but it beats the hell out of toxic nitrite.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

duncan61 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Working for the World's Largest Oil Company.

Maybe as a clerk...
sealover wrote:
Rush Limbaugh and Exxon both LOVED sealover's work.

You don't get to speak for the dead. You don't get to speak for Exxon either. Omnisicience fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Sealover helped Exxon with a short term fix in an emergency.

Your story is made up, dude.
sealover wrote:
The nitrate concentrations in the wastewater effluent were through the roof.

No such chemical.
sealover wrote:
There would be a time delay before the new innoculum would arrive to restore the population of nitrobacter denitrificans.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Meanwhile there were dangerously high levels of nitrite.

No such chemical.
sealover wrote:
But you know what? Nitrosomonas can actually take back the nitrite they generated, given the right conditions, a little organic carbon, and a little molybdenum. They started turning nitrite into ammonium.

Carbon isn't organic. No such chemicals. Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Exxon loves me. Why do you guys hate me?

You don't get to speak for Exxon. Omniscience fallacy.

No one here hates you. You are just begin paranoid.


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard for nitrate in drinking water is 10 milligrams of nitrate (measured as nitrogen) per liter of drinking water (mg/L). * Drinking water with levels of nitrate at or below 10 mg/L is considered safe for everyone.

Look what I copied and pasted.Yay me
RE: "Alligators...being amphibians.." WTF?27-04-2022 23:30
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
"Alligators...being amphibians.."

Clearly, the most qualified scientist to comment on evolutionary biology would be the one who understands that alligators are amphibians.

The unambiguous definition for "reptile" clearly would not includes alligators.

Good thing those lungless and gilled alligator tadpoles eat a different food supply than the air breathing grown ups.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Sorry, dude. The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. Adaption is not required for an organism to exist.

How, exactly, does an organism exist that is not adapted to its environment?

Can you imagine how greatly we can decrease space travel if we don't need space suits or other means of adaptation? You might be onto a gold mine. I'm all in.


Alligators, for example, like swampy areas, being amphibians. Most alligators are black to gray, and blend in pretty well to dim lighting. Albino alligators (yes, they do exist) don't blend in at all, but they still live quite happily in the swamp with the rest of them.

Obviously, the albino alligator doesn't bother to adapt by mutating. It's behavior is no different from any other alligator.

Space travel doesn't actually require space suits (although they are handy!). All it requires is a vehicle capable of traveling through space. No different than building a ship to cross a sea.
None of these vehicles can mutate. They are not living things. None of these are examples of the Theory of Natural Selection (Darwin's theory).

The Theory of Natural Selection is based on a paradox, and that, in and of itself, is sufficient for it to fail the internal consistency check.

If Natural Selection is True, it must always be True. If so, how do variations get started to Select from??

Because it fails the internal consistency check, this 'theory' actually isn't a theory at all. It's a fallacy. It's irrational. Arguing both sides of any paradox is irrational.
RE: Why alligators lay their eggs in water.28-04-2022 00:55
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
Why alligators lay their eggs in water.

Alligators, being amphibians, lay their eggs in water.

The first phase of their life cycle is aquatic.

They cannot breathe air until they become adults.

Some of them complete the aquatic part of the life cycle before they leave the egg, but the egg must be in water.

Like most other amphibians, alligators are physically very different during the first phase of their life cycle and exploit a different food source than the adults.

This offers some resilience against population loss.

Like the mosquitoes. What the babies eat is very abundant in the swamps.

Plenty of food to raise a bumper crop of hungry adults.

The daddies only need to find a bit of sugar, to have enough energy to fly around and find a mommy to get it on with.

The mommies have to find BLOOD. Not such an easy thing to find.

Most mommies fail to find that blood, or get killed trying to take it.

But the ones that succeed at getting a blood meal can lay hundreds of eggs.

And there will be more than enough food for those babies because they don't need blood. Just the stuff that's so abundant in the swamp water.

Now, when you raise your pet alligators at home, be careful.

Be sure to dechlorinate the water that you use to fill the bathtub where she will lay her eggs. The alligator babies breath water, and chlorine could kill them.

Now comes the tricky part. Those alligator tadpoles will be HUNGRY when they hatch out of the eggs and start swimming around and using their gills to get oxygen.

Be careful.

Alligators are amphibians, and their tadpoles eat BLOOD.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Sorry, dude. The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. Adaption is not required for an organism to exist.

How, exactly, does an organism exist that is not adapted to its environment?

Can you imagine how greatly we can decrease space travel if we don't need space suits or other means of adaptation? You might be onto a gold mine. I'm all in.


Alligators, for example, like swampy areas, being amphibians. Most alligators are black to gray, and blend in pretty well to dim lighting. Albino alligators (yes, they do exist) don't blend in at all, but they still live quite happily in the swamp with the rest of them.

Obviously, the albino alligator doesn't bother to adapt by mutating. It's behavior is no different from any other alligator.

Space travel doesn't actually require space suits (although they are handy!). All it requires is a vehicle capable of traveling through space. No different than building a ship to cross a sea.
None of these vehicles can mutate. They are not living things. None of these are examples of the Theory of Natural Selection (Darwin's theory).

The Theory of Natural Selection is based on a paradox, and that, in and of itself, is sufficient for it to fail the internal consistency check.

If Natural Selection is True, it must always be True. If so, how do variations get started to Select from??

Because it fails the internal consistency check, this 'theory' actually isn't a theory at all. It's a fallacy. It's irrational. Arguing both sides of any paradox is irrational.
28-04-2022 01:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
Into the Night wrote:Alligators, for example, like swampy areas, being amphibians.

They have quite clearly adapted to their environments.

Into the Night wrote:Albino alligators (yes, they do exist) don't blend in at all, but they still live quite happily in the swamp with the rest of them.

Albinism is a condition ... and a non-fatal one. Any member of any species can survive with a non-fatal condition.

Albino alligators, however, have a much rougher time and do not fare as well.

Into the Night wrote:Obviously, the albino alligator doesn't bother to adapt by mutating.

Adaptation is a random process, not an arbitrary one.

The movie Prometheus is about adaptation being arbitrary.


Into the Night wrote: Space travel doesn't actually require space suits (although they are handy!). All it requires is a vehicle capable of traveling through space.

In that case, the vehicle becomes the space suit. The bottom line is that space travel requires the environment to which we have adapted to be carried with us because we cannot survive in an environment to which we have not adapted.

Into the Night wrote:No different than building a ship to cross a sea.

There again, the environment to which we have adapted must be carried with us. We cannot survive just being dumped in the ocean with the expectation that we swim across the Atlantic, for example. Airlines pressurize their cabins for the same reason, i.e. to carry the environment along the journey as well.

Into the Night wrote:The Theory of Natural Selection is based on a paradox,

Not at all. In fact, you are in total agreement with the theory of natural selection, you just don't realize it because you don't know what the theory states.

1) You believe that life came into existence at some point, yes?

2) You can discern children from both of their parents, yes?, i.e. You recognize small differences from one generation to the next, right?

3) You understand that if someone/something dies before having offspring that his/its genes will not proliferate further, yes?

4) You understand that if someone/something has some characteristic that gives it a statistical advantage in surviving to the point of having offspring, or that affords a statistical advantage in having offspring, that the genes with said characteristic will have a statistical advantage in proliferating, yes?

Of course you do. And you're done. You do not disagree with any part of the theory of natural selection; you disagree with some other theory that is playing imposter.

Into the Night wrote:If Natural Selection is True, it must always be True. If so, how do variations get started to Select from??

You already answered this when you acknowledged that you can discern differences between parents and offsprings. Small differences over large periods of time eventually become variations.

Into the Night wrote:Because it fails the internal consistency check,

It doesn't fail any checks. The theory is comprised of a very few very basic statements.

Into the Night wrote: this 'theory' actually isn't a theory at all. It's a fallacy. It's irrational.

Perhaps your imposter theory is; it sounds pretty incredible. I'd like to learn about it someday. For the time being, I plan on going with the real thing.

I considered quoting from the Origin of Species what Charles Darwin's answers were to your questions about environment adaptation and correlated variation, but he wrote a lot (which is better to simply read from The Origin of Species)

Origin of Species

I highly recommend you peruse it and see what it reads, and more importantly, what it doesn't.
28-04-2022 02:22
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
Alligators hatch as mini versions of the adults in vast numbers just like snakes and sea turtles.Numbers ensure survival of the species.If we have an early winter flood most snakes drown on hatching but dry winters or late rains and the suckers are everywhere.WTF is an alligator tadpole.Sealover is clearly insane and I am quitting on trying to get a straight answer from the loon
28-04-2022 03:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...deleted severely damaged quoting...
Im a BM wrote:
Nitrite versus Nitrate - VERY different chemicals.

Decided to switch to this sock again I see. Neither are chemicals.
Im a BM wrote:
The 10 mg per liter USEPA standard for drinking water is for NITRATE.

The release that Exxon had to report was NITRITE.

Check the drinking water standard for NITRITE rather than NITRATE.

There must be something very different about the two "chemicals".

Neither are chemicals.
Im a BM wrote:
"Chemical" is in quotation marks because there is only one genius who understands words well enough to know what a chemical really is.

Apparently you don't.
Im a BM wrote:
Nitrate, NO3-, is a monovalent oxyanion composed of nitrogen and oxygen.

Nitrite, NO2-, is a monovalent oxyanion, composed of nitrogen and one less oxygen.

So? Not chemicals.
Im a BM wrote:
May the super genius invoke "valence electrons" to refute these facts.

You don't know what those are either. You've already demonstrated that.
Im a BM wrote:
NitrATE is only toxic at high concentrations. Even then, only toxic because some of it gets transformed to nitrITE in the low oxygen, organic carbon rich guts.

Carbon isn't organic.
Im a BM wrote:
NitrITE is toxic at far lower concentrations. Look up the USEPA drinking water standard for proof. But use the word "nitrite", like the Exxon thing was about.

And what helped mitigate the discharge was to enable the existing treatment pond ecology to operate WITHOUT the organism that transforms NITRITE into nitrogen gas.

Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Instead, carbohydrate and molybdenum were added to enable the surviving bacteria that turned the nitrate into nitrite to do something else.

Carbohydrate is not a chemical. Neither is nitrate or nitrite.
Im a BM wrote:
They had no nitrate left to work with anyway.

Not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
And the organic carbon was all burned up in the aerobic step of the process

Using the freshly added organic carbon as their energy, these same bacteria turned the nitrite they made into ammonium.

Carbon isn't organic. Ammonium is not a chemical. Nitrite is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Ammonium isn't so great in a treated wastewater discharge, but it beats the hell out of toxic nitrite.

Not chemicals. Void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-04-2022 03:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
duncan61 wrote:Alligators hatch as mini versions of the adults in vast numbers just like snakes and sea turtles.Numbers ensure survival of the species.

Charles Darwin wrote: For any form existing in lesser numbers would, as already remarked, run a greater chance of being exterminated than one existing in large numbers ;

duncan61 wrote: but dry winters or late rains and the suckers are everywhere.

Charles Darwin wrote:I have also shown that the intermediate varieties which probably at first existed in the intermediate zones, would be liable to be supplanted by the allied forms on either hand; for the latter, from existing in greater numbers, would generally be modified and improved at a quicker rate than the intermediate varieties, which existed in lesser numbers; so that the intermediate varieties would, in the long run, be supplanted and exterminated.

-------------------------------

duncan61 wrote:Sealover is clearly insane and I am quitting on trying to get a straight answer from the loon

He's not playing your "word games."
RE: Note to Duncan61 "amphibians"?28-04-2022 06:04
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
Note to Duncan61

The ABSURD assertion that alligators are amphibians was made in the underlying post by Parrot Boy, and accepted as accurate by Ugly Clown.

"Alligators, for example, like swampy areas, being amphibians."

That is the direct quote from not a sea lover, just a super genius.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Sorry, dude. The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. Adaption is not required for an organism to exist.

How, exactly, does an organism exist that is not adapted to its environment?

Can you imagine how greatly we can decrease space travel if we don't need space suits or other means of adaptation? You might be onto a gold mine. I'm all in.


Alligators, for example, like swampy areas, being amphibians. Most alligators are black to gray, and blend in pretty well to dim lighting. Albino alligators (yes, they do exist) don't blend in at all, but they still live quite happily in the swamp with the rest of them.

Obviously, the albino alligator doesn't bother to adapt by mutating. It's behavior is no different from any other alligator.

Space travel doesn't actually require space suits (although they are handy!). All it requires is a vehicle capable of traveling through space. No different than building a ship to cross a sea.
None of these vehicles can mutate. They are not living things. None of these are examples of the Theory of Natural Selection (Darwin's theory).

The Theory of Natural Selection is based on a paradox, and that, in and of itself, is sufficient for it to fail the internal consistency check.

If Natural Selection is True, it must always be True. If so, how do variations get started to Select from??

Because it fails the internal consistency check, this 'theory' actually isn't a theory at all. It's a fallacy. It's irrational. Arguing both sides of any paradox is irrational.
28-04-2022 11:58
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
Alligators are reptiles.
28-04-2022 16:48
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
duncan61 wrote:
Alligators are reptiles.

Duncan these are rep-tiles from wikipedeo:


this hurt my brain - owey!



28-04-2022 17:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
GretaGroupie wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Alligators are reptiles.

Duncan these are rep-tiles from wikipedeo:


this hurt my brain - owey!


Here's a reptile I made ... because everyone should make a reptile every so often:
Attached image:

RE: Methane Oxidizing Sulfate Reducing Bacteria for Acid Neutralizing Biofuel.30-04-2022 05:43
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Methane Oxidizing Sulfate Reducing Bacteria for Acid Neutralizing Biofuel.

The methane oxidizing bacteria discussed so far are those that use oxygen as oxidant.

They can be used to scavenge for leaked methane, turn it into CO2, and reduce its global warming potential twenty fold.

Among the most ancient bacteria are some that use SULFATE as oxidant to get energy from methane.

These bacteria do not turn methane into CO2. They turn methane into ALKALINITY.

There is a growing glut of available methane now owing to the practice of fracking.

A different kind of fossil fuel substitution is possible with sulfate reducing, methane oxidizing bacteria.

Methane can be used to feed cultured bacteria under anaerobic conditions.

They will transform the methane into alkalinity (bicarbonate and carbonate).

A bacteria farm next to the ocean could discharge alkalinity directly to the sea.

The moles of alkalinity generated will be 1:1 ratio with moles of methane oxidized.

Eventually the bacteria can be harvested for biofuel, animal feed, and fertilizer.

It could even be burned as biofuel to generate electricity.

The carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere will be outweighed by the alkalinity generated during culturing of the bacteria.

A little CO2 added to the sky, offset by a lot of alkalinity added to the sea.

We just need to rethink the concept of oxidants for fossil fuel "combustion".

Methane Oxidizing Sulfate Reducing Bacteria for Acid Neutralizing Biofuel.



IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]GretaGroupie wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
Alligators are reptiles.
30-04-2022 06:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
squeal over wrote:They can be used to scavenge for leaked methane, turn it into CO2, and reduce its global warming potential twenty fold.

1. What is Global Warming? I'm not familiar with that.
2. How does one measure a substance's Global Warming potential? Is it in the periodic table of the elements?
3. How does one calculate a reduction of Global Warming potential? Do you have any example word problems?

squeal over wrote:Among the most ancient bacteria are some that use SULFATE as oxidant to get energy from methane.

They're still alive?

squeal over wrote:These bacteria do not turn methane into CO2. They turn methane into ALKALINITY.

These bacteria turn methane into bicarbonate and carbonate which you label as "ALKALINITY." Are you simply hijacking the word "alkaline"?

squeal over wrote:There is a growing glut of available methane now owing to the practice of fracking.

How is this attributed to fracking and not simply to drilling?

squeal over wrote:A different kind of fossil fuel substitution is possible with sulfate reducing, methane oxidizing bacteria.

What is a "fossil fuel"? I didn't know fossils even needed fuel.

Fascinating.
01-05-2022 01:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Methane Oxidizing Sulfate Reducing Bacteria for Acid Neutralizing Biofuel.

The methane oxidizing bacteria discussed so far are those that use oxygen as oxidant.

They can be used to scavenge for leaked methane, turn it into CO2, and reduce its global warming potential twenty fold.

Define 'global warming'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Argument from randU fallacy. Denial of science.
sealover wrote:
Among the most ancient bacteria are some that use SULFATE as oxidant to get energy from methane.

These bacteria do not turn methane into CO2. They turn methane into ALKALINITY.

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
There is a growing glut of available methane now owing to the practice of fracking.

You mean the fracking the Biden banned?
sealover wrote:
A different kind of fossil fuel substitution is possible with sulfate reducing, methane oxidizing bacteria.

Fossils aren't used for fuel. Fossils don't burn.
sealover wrote:
Methane can be used to feed cultured bacteria under anaerobic conditions.

They will transform the methane into alkalinity (bicarbonate and carbonate).

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
A bacteria farm next to the ocean could discharge alkalinity directly to the sea.

The moles of alkalinity generated will be 1:1 ratio with moles of methane oxidized.

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Eventually the bacteria can be harvested for biofuel, animal feed, and fertilizer.

It could even be burned as biofuel to generate electricity.

The carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere will be outweighed by the alkalinity generated during culturing of the bacteria.

CO2 paranoia. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
A little CO2 added to the sky, offset by a lot of alkalinity added to the sea.

We just need to rethink the concept of oxidants for fossil fuel "combustion".

Fossils aren't use for fuel. Fossils don't burn. CO2 paranoia. Buzzword fallacies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-05-2022 04:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
Into the Night wrote:CO2 paranoia. Buzzword fallacies.

I like that term "CO2 paranoia" but I prefer "carbon diophobia"

It's chemical formula is PANICO2

.
Attached image:

RE: But the error is never admitted07-05-2022 20:14
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Im a BM wrote:
Why alligators lay their eggs in water.

Alligators, being amphibians, lay their eggs in water.

The first phase of their life cycle is aquatic.

They cannot breathe air until they become adults.

Some of them complete the aquatic part of the life cycle before they leave the egg, but the egg must be in water.

Like most other amphibians, alligators are physically very different during the first phase of their life cycle and exploit a different food source than the adults.

This offers some resilience against population loss.

Like the mosquitoes. What the babies eat is very abundant in the swamps.

Plenty of food to raise a bumper crop of hungry adults.

The daddies only need to find a bit of sugar, to have enough energy to fly around and find a mommy to get it on with.

The mommies have to find BLOOD. Not such an easy thing to find.

Most mommies fail to find that blood, or get killed trying to take it.

But the ones that succeed at getting a blood meal can lay hundreds of eggs.

And there will be more than enough food for those babies because they don't need blood. Just the stuff that's so abundant in the swamp water.

Now, when you raise your pet alligators at home, be careful.

Be sure to dechlorinate the water that you use to fill the bathtub where she will lay her eggs. The alligator babies breath water, and chlorine could kill them.

Now comes the tricky part. Those alligator tadpoles will be HUNGRY when they hatch out of the eggs and start swimming around and using their gills to get oxygen.

Be careful.

Alligators are amphibians, and their tadpoles eat BLOOD.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Sorry, dude. The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. Adaption is not required for an organism to exist.

How, exactly, does an organism exist that is not adapted to its environment?

Can you imagine how greatly we can decrease space travel if we don't need space suits or other means of adaptation? You might be onto a gold mine. I'm all in.


Alligators, for example, like swampy areas, being amphibians. Most alligators are black to gray, and blend in pretty well to dim lighting. Albino alligators (yes, they do exist) don't blend in at all, but they still live quite happily in the swamp with the rest of them.

Obviously, the albino alligator doesn't bother to adapt by mutating. It's behavior is no different from any other alligator.

Space travel doesn't actually require space suits (although they are handy!). All it requires is a vehicle capable of traveling through space. No different than building a ship to cross a sea.
None of these vehicles can mutate. They are not living things. None of these are examples of the Theory of Natural Selection (Darwin's theory).

The Theory of Natural Selection is based on a paradox, and that, in and of itself, is sufficient for it to fail the internal consistency check.

If Natural Selection is True, it must always be True. If so, how do variations get started to Select from??

Because it fails the internal consistency check, this 'theory' actually isn't a theory at all. It's a fallacy. It's irrational. Arguing both sides of any paradox is irrational.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat7425-05-2022 21:20
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity8812-05-2022 03:11
The Rebirth Of Soviet Union Under A Better Version Brand Will Lead To World Peace524-01-2022 04:11
The New Special Happiness Money Will Lead The Life Evolution On Earth319-09-2021 05:44
CO2 sensor1219-06-2021 03:40
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact