| 25-01-2025 01:56 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2810) |
Into the Night wrote: Yeah, I might have taken that gig as a hired gun chemist sub contractor for the folks who want to dig that underground tunnel to supplement the (above-ground) California Aquaduct. The California Aquaduct is what a very stable genius might metaphorically refer to as a "spigot", a "valve", or a "faucet". If they dig that new tunnel under the smelty delta, there will be MUCH higher capacity to supply water directly to those LA fire hydrants. They will have a much bigger faucet to use. Well, even a few years back there was already tree hugger opposition and legal measures to try to prevent people from even THINKING about digging a tunnel. They wanted someone to do what I had done before in court, proving that sediment materials dug up from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are NOT toxic hazardous waste, as alleged. They also wanted to pre-empt the opposition based on the alleged chemical impact of bentonite drilling materials potentially impacting soil and water. For a job like that, they pretty much insist on an actual degree in chemistry from a recognized institution of higher learning. These guys needed more than that from their expert witness. They needed someone whose published chemistry research was widely cited by other scientists in regard to the kind of organometallic interactions that regulate the toxicity or attenuation of transition metal cations. They wanted the guy who already showed them in federal court why use of a waste extraction test using pH 5 citrate buffer gave FALSE indications of metal toxicity, and that the delta sediment material was not hazardous to the environment in any way. For the fears of bentonite drilling materials contaminating soil and water, they wanted the guy who already explained in court what happens to the acid sulfate soils of the delta when they are exposed to high pH materials, such as the large scale application of beet lime (calcium carbonate), and its impact on groundwater. They could show they understood the bentonite chemistry well enough to ensure potential adverse impacts were avoided. Sigh. I wanted GasGuzzler to realize he was wrong to think I might not have done anything of value in the free market as a paid provider of services... But I didn't want the delta tunnel job. I hope that Trump's dream of a bigger faucet doesn't tip the scales and get that colossal project in motion. Is it completely irrelevant that none of that magic faucet water gets much farther south than Bakersfield? It doesn't climb up the grapevine out of the valley, over the hills, and into the LA fire hydrant system. Zero percent of any water in any reservoir, tank, pipe, or pump associated with the LA fire hydrant system comes from that "valve" "faucet" "spigot" thing up North that Trump is so fond of. Sorry to burst your bubble. |
| 29-03-2025 20:00 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2810) |
GasGuzzler is back! It is possible that GasGuzzler didn't get notified of this post in response to his inquiry. I am very curious to know how my examples of selling my chemistry skills in the free market to the private sector measure up to his standards of what is worthy of respect. GasGuzzler, you have the option to simply pull a Parrot and tell me that I am a LIAR. Make it all go away by insisting that it isn't even TRUE. I never testified in court as an expert chemistry witness, never set foot in a lab, never did ANY of it because I am a Marxist warmazombie scientifically illiterate moron LIAR. You could pull a daMann and BELITTLE my accomplishments as a chemist in the private sector. I wasn't even FIRST AUTHOR of that paper Rush Limbaugh was talking about. I'm just exaggerating the significance to try to pretend I'm anything more than a scientifically illiterate moron Marxist warmazombie. Or you could pull a GasGuzzler and refuse to acknowledge that your assertions are up against evidence to the contrary. and just pretend you never asked, and you never saw the answer. GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote: HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, GASGUZZLER! EIGHT YEARS! Do you SERIOUSLY want me to try to list all the "chemistry knowledge to provide a good or service in exchange for compensation in the private sector." that I have done over the decades? That would give me a chance to explain why I am an EXPERT in the groundwater chemistry of coastal wetlands. The private sector paid me to intensively investigate it. BOY did they get their money's worth! The private sector paid me to get them out of a pickle that would have cost them literally millions and millions of dollars if I hadn't come through with some good chemistry that they could take to court. More than once, twice, three times I've done this. Sometimes scientifically illiterate morons are able to get into powerful positions within government bureaucracies. Sometimes they presume that human activity is responsible for something they interpret as "pollution". A chemist like myself comes along, over and over, and finds the TRUE source of the "chemical" they are worried about. It's just MOM. Mother Nature. Saved the California taxpayers MILLIONS by showing that it wasn't FORESTRY PRACTICES (putting liability on Cal Dept of Forestry), but just the natural bedrock that caused the big fish kills in the reservoirs. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on His Show" thread that I posted here before. Rush was excited because we proved that it was the ROCKS and not the LOGGERS causing the "pollution". What killed the fish? Well, ammonium ions were released from the bedrock closest to the soil surface. There is a rare patch of ammonium-rich bedrock right in the middle of the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame. Formed from marine sedimentary rocks uplifted tens of millions of years ago and now part of the lower Sierra Nevada mountains, it only underwent mild metamorphosis. The bedrock of the Mother Lode was not subjected to the normal kind of intense heat and pressure that squeezes and bakes all the nitrogen out of rocks. Okay, now that old bedrock is transforming into soil and releasing ammonium. Nitrifying bacteria are using oxygen to oxidize the ammonium to nitrate. Nitrate is leaching into the ground water flowing into creeks in this lower part of the Mokolumne River. Nitrate-enriched water is collecting in the reservoir. Nitrate doesn't kill fish, unless at impossibly high concentration for a river. But nitrate fertilizes algae. And algae decompose eventually. And in the summer when the wind is still, the high temperature make it hard for water to hold oxygen anyway, and the microbial feeding frenzy consuming the dead algae ALSO consumes all the oxygen. Lack of oxygen definitely DOES kill fish. Those poor fish were trapped in a lake with no escape. It it had been a low-oxygen "dead zone" in the ocean, at least the fish can swim to where there is more oxygen. By the way, maybe we should call "dead zones" by another name. These low oxygen zones are hardly "dead". They support much higher biomass (if you are into anaerobic bacteria) than the adjacent sea outside the so-called "dead zone". They are actually "extra ALIVE zones". Not everyone can escape the "dead zones" before they suffocate. Fish and shrimp and squid, etc., can all sense that there is too little oxygen and swim back to where there is more. But other aerobic organisms cannot move so easily to get to where there is more oxygen. Slow moving or immobile shellfish attached to the rocks have nowhere to go and make the "dead" in "dead zone" mean something. Saved the Port of (somewhere) MILLIONS by showing that dredged sediments are NOT "toxic" (requiring expensive disposal and storage) but a valuable resource to be sold for levee construction, etc. An official waste extraction test using a pH 5 citrate buffer had shown potentially toxic concentration of metals such as nickel could be released from the dredge spoils. Since the dredge spoils already had pH less than 5 due to the sulfuric acid they form upon exposure to oxygen, the citrate WET test proved TOXICITY. It was fun to humiliate the top bureaucrat in federal court. Explaining how citric acid in the citrate buffer is a metal complexing organic acid that scientists love to play with because it is SUPPOSED to pull out a lot more metal than would otherwise be soluble. Explaining how the dredge spoils were no different than the acid sulfate soils formed on millions of hectares of drained wetlands throughout the world. Having pH less than 5 actually STABILIZED the toxic metals by keeping the organic matter insoluble. Liming the dredge spoils with calcium carbonate to raise pH actually caused toxic metals to be released that would NOT be released in the acidic condition. We won in court because we had solid science to support our case. And the opposing argument was very thin and easy to debunk. Caveat - We would have LOST the case if any other consulting agency had brought in any other expert witness or chemist to study it. This I was told by many others who praised the effort. I LOVE it when they tell me I'm a brilliant scientist. Don't get much of that at THIS website, but that's not why I'm here. But I absolutely believe you GasGuzzler that you DON'T effing CARE. You care as much about chemistry as you do about climate change. Which is to say you don't give a flying eff, and your ONLY GOAL is to BE A TROLL So we got the falsely accused dredged sediments that I got off the hook in court, saving the private sector millions and millions. The falsely accused forestry practices I got off the hook in court, saving the taxpayers millions and millions. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on his Show" thread, where I posted it here. But there were plenty of other cases where I sold my skills for the benefit of all concern. Got the damn REGULATORS off the hook for liability even, when they mandated "pH adjustment" in a massive environmental chemotherapy experiment. I solve the puzzle for them to figure what is REALLY happening with all those complicated biogeochemical reactions in soil, air, and water. Too tempting to provide more and more examples. Of course, my prowess as a chemist is NOTHING compared to Into the Night. I feel so inferior to Into the Night when I read his chemical explanations. It is obvious that he understands this stuff on a WHOLE DIFFERENT LEVEL than I do. |
| 15-07-2025 23:55 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (2810) |
GasGuzzler is back! It is possible that GasGuzzler didn't get notified of this post in response to his inquiry. I am very curious to know how my examples of selling my chemistry skills in the free market to the private sector measure up to his standards of what is worthy of respect. GasGuzzler, you have the option to simply pull a Parrot and tell me that I am a LIAR. Make it all go away by insisting that it isn't even TRUE. I never testified in court as an expert chemistry witness, never set foot in a lab, never did ANY of it because I am a Marxist warmazombie scientifically illiterate moron LIAR. You could pull a daMann and BELITTLE my accomplishments as a chemist in the private sector. I wasn't even FIRST AUTHOR of that paper Rush Limbaugh was talking about. I'm just exaggerating the significance to try to pretend I'm anything more than a scientifically illiterate moron Marxist warmazombie. Or you could pull a GasGuzzler and refuse to acknowledge that your assertions are up against evidence to the contrary. and just pretend you never asked, and you never saw the answer. GasGuzzler wrote:Im a BM wrote: HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, GASGUZZLER! EIGHT YEARS! Do you SERIOUSLY want me to try to list all the "chemistry knowledge to provide a good or service in exchange for compensation in the private sector." that I have done over the decades? That would give me a chance to explain why I am an EXPERT in the groundwater chemistry of coastal wetlands. The private sector paid me to intensively investigate it. BOY did they get their money's worth! The private sector paid me to get them out of a pickle that would have cost them literally millions and millions of dollars if I hadn't come through with some good chemistry that they could take to court. More than once, twice, three times I've done this. Sometimes scientifically illiterate morons are able to get into powerful positions within government bureaucracies. Sometimes they presume that human activity is responsible for something they interpret as "pollution". A chemist like myself comes along, over and over, and finds the TRUE source of the "chemical" they are worried about. It's just MOM. Mother Nature. Saved the California taxpayers MILLIONS by showing that it wasn't FORESTRY PRACTICES (putting liability on Cal Dept of Forestry), but just the natural bedrock that caused the big fish kills in the reservoirs. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on His Show" thread that I posted here before. Rush was excited because we proved that it was the ROCKS and not the LOGGERS causing the "pollution". What killed the fish? Well, ammonium ions were released from the bedrock closest to the soil surface. There is a rare patch of ammonium-rich bedrock right in the middle of the Mother Lode, of California Gold Rush fame. Formed from marine sedimentary rocks uplifted tens of millions of years ago and now part of the lower Sierra Nevada mountains, it only underwent mild metamorphosis. The bedrock of the Mother Lode was not subjected to the normal kind of intense heat and pressure that squeezes and bakes all the nitrogen out of rocks. Okay, now that old bedrock is transforming into soil and releasing ammonium. Nitrifying bacteria are using oxygen to oxidize the ammonium to nitrate. Nitrate is leaching into the ground water flowing into creeks in this lower part of the Mokolumne River. Nitrate-enriched water is collecting in the reservoir. Nitrate doesn't kill fish, unless at impossibly high concentration for a river. But nitrate fertilizes algae. And algae decompose eventually. And in the summer when the wind is still, the high temperature make it hard for water to hold oxygen anyway, and the microbial feeding frenzy consuming the dead algae ALSO consumes all the oxygen. Lack of oxygen definitely DOES kill fish. Those poor fish were trapped in a lake with no escape. It it had been a low-oxygen "dead zone" in the ocean, at least the fish can swim to where there is more oxygen. By the way, maybe we should call "dead zones" by another name. These low oxygen zones are hardly "dead". They support much higher biomass (if you are into anaerobic bacteria) than the adjacent sea outside the so-called "dead zone". They are actually "extra ALIVE zones". Not everyone can escape the "dead zones" before they suffocate. Fish and shrimp and squid, etc., can all sense that there is too little oxygen and swim back to where there is more. But other aerobic organisms cannot move so easily to get to where there is more oxygen. Slow moving or immobile shellfish attached to the rocks have nowhere to go and make the "dead" in "dead zone" mean something. Saved the Port of (somewhere) MILLIONS by showing that dredged sediments are NOT "toxic" (requiring expensive disposal and storage) but a valuable resource to be sold for levee construction, etc. An official waste extraction test using a pH 5 citrate buffer had shown potentially toxic concentration of metals such as nickel could be released from the dredge spoils. Since the dredge spoils already had pH less than 5 due to the sulfuric acid they form upon exposure to oxygen, the citrate WET test proved TOXICITY. It was fun to humiliate the top bureaucrat in federal court. Explaining how citric acid in the citrate buffer is a metal complexing organic acid that scientists love to play with because it is SUPPOSED to pull out a lot more metal than would otherwise be soluble. Explaining how the dredge spoils were no different than the acid sulfate soils formed on millions of hectares of drained wetlands throughout the world. Having pH less than 5 actually STABILIZED the toxic metals by keeping the organic matter insoluble. Liming the dredge spoils with calcium carbonate to raise pH actually caused toxic metals to be released that would NOT be released in the acidic condition. We won in court because we had solid science to support our case. And the opposing argument was very thin and easy to debunk. Caveat - We would have LOST the case if any other consulting agency had brought in any other expert witness or chemist to study it. This I was told by many others who praised the effort. I LOVE it when they tell me I'm a brilliant scientist. Don't get much of that at THIS website, but that's not why I'm here. But I absolutely believe you GasGuzzler that you DON'T effing CARE. You care as much about chemistry as you do about climate change. Which is to say you don't give a flying eff, and your ONLY GOAL is to BE A TROLL So we got the falsely accused dredged sediments that I got off the hook in court, saving the private sector millions and millions. The falsely accused forestry practices I got off the hook in court, saving the taxpayers millions and millions. You might have seen it on the "Rush Limbaugh Cited One of My Discoveries on his Show" thread, where I posted it here. But there were plenty of other cases where I sold my skills for the benefit of all concern. Got the damn REGULATORS off the hook for liability even, when they mandated "pH adjustment" in a massive environmental chemotherapy experiment. I solve the puzzle for them to figure what is REALLY happening with all those complicated biogeochemical reactions in soil, air, and water. Too tempting to provide more and more examples. Of course, my prowess as a chemist is NOTHING compared to Into the Night. I feel so inferior to Into the Night when I read his chemical explanations. It is obvious that he understands this stuff on a WHOLE DIFFERENT LEVEL than I do.[/quote] I guess this wasn't impressive enough... Did I tell you that I developed a new laboratory analytical method the replace the classic Kjeldahl digestion procedure? It's hard to say how many million dollars this has saved in technician time to get needed data. Just the millions that have been made producing automated devices to perform persulfate oxidation as the better alternative to the Kjeldahl digest. EPA took forever to approve the test method, long after I got them using in places such as UC Berkeley research labs. It may have even saved lives by now. The Kjeldahl digest involves use of concentrated acid at very high temperature. Is that still too politically correct to merit respect? Edited on 15-07-2025 23:57 |
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| More Destructive Conditions Will Be Added In Order For Me The Messiah To Release Publish New World Financ | 2 | 27-12-2025 03:07 |
| Biogeochemistry-related Thread Guide for "sealover" threads. | 95 | 06-12-2025 21:19 |
| Biogeochemistry Related Thread List | 83 | 06-12-2025 21:19 |
| Homemade Ketchup Thread | 7 | 02-08-2023 18:33 |
| This thread is only for members with more than 2500 posts | 2 | 14-06-2023 03:45 |